get_user_tweets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but reveals little beyond the basic operation. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (implied by 'cursor' parameter but not explained), or what data is returned. For a read operation with 5 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place in conveying the basic 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 has an output schema (which handles return values), the description's minimalism is somewhat acceptable. However, for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, it should provide more context about usage scenarios, parameter meanings, and behavioral constraints. The presence of an output schema raises the baseline but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of parameter and behavioral guidance.

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 'user_id' format is expected, what 'count' limits exist, how 'cursor' works for pagination, or what 'exclude_replies' and 'exclude_retweets' actually exclude. The description fails to provide meaningful parameter context beyond what's in the bare schema.

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 resource 'tweets posted by a specific user', making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user_mentions' or 'get_liked_tweets', but the specificity is adequate for basic understanding.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_user_mentions' (for tweets mentioning the user) or 'get_liked_tweets' (for tweets the user liked). The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate compared to other tweet-fetching tools.

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