get_user_followers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'retrieves a list' but doesn't disclose key behaviors: it doesn't mention pagination (implied by 'cursor' parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output contains (e.g., user objects). For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.

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, pagination), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and parameter explanations, leaving the agent to rely heavily on the schema and output schema for full understanding.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description adds minimal semantics by implying 'user_id' identifies the target user, but it doesn't explain 'count' (defaults, limits) or 'cursor' (pagination). With 3 parameters and low coverage, the description doesn't adequately compensate, but it at least hints at the primary parameter's role.

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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('list of followers for a given user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_user_following' (which retrieves who the user follows) and 'get_user_followers_you_know' (which has a different scope). However, it doesn't specify the verb 'list' or mention pagination, leaving some ambiguity.

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 siblings like 'get_user_followers_you_know' for a filtered list or 'get_user_following' for a different relationship. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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