kitty.mentions.get

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral details. It only states the basic function and does not mention search scope (e.g., whether comments are included), pagination, ordering, or return structure. This minimal disclosure leaves significant behavioral unknowns for the agent.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No redundant wording or filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

The tool is simple (2 required params, no output schema). The description explains the core purpose but omits details like return format, whether the search includes comments or ticket fields, and any limitations. Given no output schema, the description could be more helpful, but it is minimally viable for a straightforward lookup.

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 50%: projectSlug is already described in the schema. The description adds meaning to 'handle' by indicating it refers to a 'user handle', which is not described in the schema. It partially compensates for the missing schema description but does not provide full parameter context.

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') and the specific resource ('tickets where a user handle is mentioned'). It is distinct from sibling tools like kitty.tickets.list (which lists all tickets) and kitty.ticket.get (which fetches a single ticket), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage: when you need to find tickets that mention a specific user handle. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear but not formally differentiated from other list/filter tools.

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