get_replies

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 'Get replies' but doesn't describe key traits like whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior (implied by 'cursor' but not explained), or what the output contains. This is a significant gap for a tool with parameters and output.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 an output schema (which handles return values) but no annotations and low parameter coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks behavioral context and parameter details, making it incomplete for optimal agent use, though not entirely inadequate.

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 description mentions 'to a specific tweet', which hints at the 'tweet_id' parameter, but with 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters total, it doesn't adequately explain 'count' (default 100) or 'cursor' (for pagination). It adds minimal value beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for partial 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'replies to a specific tweet', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_conversation' or 'get_quote_tweets', which might also retrieve tweet-related content, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 sibling tools like 'get_conversation' for broader context or 'get_quote_tweets' for different reply types, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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