get-mentions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping context (current-user mentions, result types), but does not disclose details like pagination behavior or rate limits. With annotations handling the core behavioral contract, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, both meaningful: the first states purpose and result types, the second covers filters and the sibling-tool distinction. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a read-only fetch tool with full parameter descriptions, a required workspaceId, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential selection and invocation guidance. Pagination is handled by cursor in the schema, and the search-content alternative is explicitly named, leaving no critical gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description's mention of filtering by channel, author, and date range maps to existing parameters (channelIds, authorIds, dateFrom/dateTo) but adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, keeping this at the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch threads, comments, and messages that mention the current user.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from search-content by noting the no-keyword-query case, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly states when to prefer this tool over search-content ('Use this instead of search-content when no keyword query is needed') and describes the available filtering dimensions (channel, author, date range). This gives the agent clear routing context and practical guidance.

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