getUserBookmarks

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't address critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the parameter), error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 6 parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded and earns its place by establishing what the tool does in minimal terms.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, error conditions, or authentication needs. While the schema covers parameters, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., explaining how expansions or fields work in practice). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get a user's bookmarked posts' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('user's bookmarked posts'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getLikedTweets' or 'getUserTimeline' which also retrieve user-specific content, missing full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context for use, or comparison with sibling tools like 'getLikedTweets' or 'searchAll', leaving the agent to infer usage patterns independently.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.