x_api_get_users_mentions

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

Although no annotations are present, the description compensates by detailing risk (read-only), required auth scopes, environment-selection behavior for tenant principal resolution, common failure conditions, and safety warnings. This goes well beyond a minimal disclosure and gives an agent a clear picture of what to expect and what could go wrong.

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 organized into labeled sections (Use when, Risk, Required permissions, etc.), making it easy to scan. It is somewhat long but each section carries useful information, and the example adds practical value. It is concise relative to the amount of context it packs.

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 description covers many operational aspects: permissions, environment selection, response shape, failure conditions, and an example. However, it lacks a clear explanation of what 'mentions' means in this API context and does not define the semantics of key query parameters. For a tool with 13 parameters and no annotations, this is a noticeable gap, though the overall coverage is moderate.

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?

The description lists parameters with their locations (path/query) and types, and explains how scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey interact for auth resolution. However, many fields like since_id, until_id, pagination_token, and start_time/end_time are marked as 'unknown' or just 'string' without explaining their purpose or format. Given the schema has 0% description coverage, the description only partially fills the gap.

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 says only 'Get mentions,' which is essentially a restatement of the tool name and lacks specificity. It does not clarify whose mentions are retrieved (e.g., mentions about a user) or distinguish this from sibling tools like x_api_get_users_timeline or x_api_get_users_posts. The purpose is therefore vague and under-specified.

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 'Use when' is tautological ('Get mentions') and provides no practical decision guidance. The 'Do not use when' gives generic advice about preferring schema discovery or query suggestion for exploration, but it does not differentiate this tool from other user-related X API tools. No concrete alternatives are named for the specific task of fetching mentions.

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