get_retweets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('Get users who retweeted a tweet') without revealing any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by the cursor parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output contains. This leaves critical operational details unspecified.

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 waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by directly contributing to understanding the tool's function.

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 (3 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema (which helps), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (no annotations), leaves parameters unexplained (0% schema coverage), and doesn't provide usage guidelines. While the output schema may cover return values, the description doesn't sufficiently address other critical aspects for effective tool 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%, meaning none of the parameters (tweet_id, count, cursor) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond the implied tweet_id from 'a tweet'. It doesn't explain what count controls (default 100, nullable), what cursor is for pagination, or format requirements for tweet_id. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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 users who retweeted a tweet' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('users who retweeted a tweet'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other retrieval tools like get_liked_tweets or get_quote_tweets by specifying the retweet relationship. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., get_user_followers might be conceptually similar for user retrieval).

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., needing a valid tweet_id), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like get_quote_tweets (which might overlap in retrieving engagement data). Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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