get_muted_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get list' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (cursor parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the returned list takes. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context.

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 extremely concise at just four words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary elaboration. This is an example of maximum efficiency in minimal space.

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 that this is a read operation with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, but has an output schema, the description is incomplete. While the output schema may document return values, the description doesn't provide enough context about the tool's behavior, parameter usage, or differentiation from similar list-retrieval tools among the many siblings.

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 for undocumented parameters. The description mentions no parameters at all, failing to explain what 'count' or 'cursor' mean or how they affect the list retrieval. This leaves two parameters completely unexplained beyond their schema definitions.

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 tool's purpose as 'Get list of muted users', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_blocked_users' or 'get_user_followers', which are similar list-retrieval operations, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.

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 are many sibling tools for retrieving user lists (e.g., get_blocked_users, get_user_followers, get_list_members), but no indication of when this specific muted users list is appropriate versus others.

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