get_timeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Get tweets' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (implied by cursor parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'For You' entails algorithmically. For a tool with parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Get tweets from your home timeline') and adds clarifying context ('For You') without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 covers return values), 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose clearly but lacks parameter semantics and behavioral context. For a read operation with output schema, it's passable but incomplete due to missing guidance and transparency.

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 'count' (default 100) or 'cursor' (default null) mean, their formats, or how they affect the tweet retrieval. With 2 parameters undocumented in both schema and description, this falls short of compensating for the coverage gap.

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 action ('Get tweets') and resource ('from your home timeline'), specifying it's for the 'For You' algorithmic feed. It distinguishes from siblings like get_latest_timeline (chronological) and get_user_tweets (user-specific), though not explicitly. However, it could be more specific about what 'home timeline' entails versus other timeline types.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_latest_timeline or get_user_tweets. The description implies it's for the personalized 'For You' feed, but doesn't state when to choose it over other timeline or tweet-fetching tools, nor mention prerequisites like authentication needs.

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