get_bookmarks

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 it's a retrieval operation ('Get'), implying read-only behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'cursor' parameter but not explained), or what 'your' means in terms of user context. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get your bookmarked tweets'), making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for description detail. However, the lack of parameter explanations and behavioral context (e.g., pagination, auth) leaves gaps that could hinder effective use.

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 has 0% description coverage, so parameters 'count' and 'cursor' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what 'count' controls (e.g., number of tweets per page), what 'cursor' is for (e.g., pagination token), or default behaviors. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 your bookmarked tweets' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('your bookmarked tweets'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'bookmark_tweet' (create) and 'delete_bookmark' (delete), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other retrieval tools like 'get_liked_tweets' or 'get_user_tweets'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare it to similar tools like 'get_liked_tweets' or 'get_user_tweets', or indicate scenarios where it's preferred. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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