follow_topics

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what annotations already provide. With destructiveHint: true, the mutation nature is clear, but there is no information on side effects, idempotency, or error conditions. The description adds minimal value.

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 sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness. The structure is appropriate for such a simple tool.

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 simplicity of the tool, the description is adequate but lacks completeness. It does not explain the outcome upon success/failure, whether the operation is idempotent, or any constraints. Without an output schema, more information would help the agent handle the response.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds only 'specific topics', which is redundant. Since the schema already documents the parameters fully, the description does not provide significant additional meaning.

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 (make a user follow) and resource (specific topics). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling 'unfollow_topics'. However, it lacks detail on what 'follow' entails (e.g., notifications, activity feed).

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 'unfollow_topics'. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or scenarios. This is a significant gap given the presence of sibling tools.

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