get_highlights_tweets

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 'retrieves' which implies a read operation, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (though cursor parameter hints at it), or what 'highlighted' means operationally. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 3 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 no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a retrieval tool and front-loads the core functionality immediately.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is inadequate. However, the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. The description covers the basic purpose but misses critical parameter explanations and behavioral context needed for 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'user_id' format is expected, what 'count' controls, what 'cursor' does, or what 'highlighted tweets' means. The description fails to provide any semantic context beyond what's inferable from parameter names.

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 clearly states the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('highlighted tweets from a user's timeline'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from other tweet retrieval tools like get_timeline or get_user_tweets by specifying 'highlighted' tweets, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 like get_timeline or get_user_tweets. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to 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.