get_user_following

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. It states the tool retrieves data (implying read-only), but doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by 'cursor' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output contains. For a read operation with pagination, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic retrieval.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a straightforward retrieval tool, 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 (pagination via cursor, default count), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details and parameter explanations that would help an agent use it correctly in context with sibling tools.

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 documentation. The description mentions 'the given user' which hints at the 'user_id' parameter, but doesn't explain 'count' (defaults to 100) or 'cursor' (pagination). With 3 parameters and low coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond what's inferable from parameter names, failing to compensate for the schema 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('users the given user is following'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_user_followers' by focusing on 'following' rather than 'followers', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them in the description text itself.

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 like 'get_user_followers', 'get_user_followers_you_know', or other user-related tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and description.

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