invariance_dna_list_object_mentions

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavior beyond the schema by explaining that mentions are extracted from events/chunks, may only resolve to objects, and that the response is a paginated {data, next_cursor} structure.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence defines the tool, the next covers filtering and output. There is no filler, and the pagination contract is included without extra ceremony.

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 list operation with no output schema, the description adequately supplies the return shape, pagination mechanism, and main filter dimensions. It does not document project_id or mention_type values, but since all parameters are optional and read-only behavior is covered by annotations, these are moderate rather than critical omissions.

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 57%, with event_id, chunk_id, object_id, and cursor already described. The description mostly restates those filter names and adds only a light semantic nuance about object resolution. It does not explain limit behavior, project_id scoping, or acceptable mention_type values, leaving meaningful gaps.

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: 'List Company DNA object mentions.' It defines those mentions as extracted references that may resolve to a DNA object, which clearly separates this tool from sibling tools like invariance_dna_list_objects.

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 gives useful invocation context by listing the available filter dimensions and the paginated output shape. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over invariance_dna_list_objects or the DNA edge-candidate tools, so the routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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