get_mentions

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

With no annotations, the description conveys that this is a read operation returning tweets where other users @mention the authenticated user. It does not describe pagination or rate-limit behavior, but the output schema and max_results parameter cover the essential invocation context.

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 two concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds meaningful information without 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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, and the description sufficiently clarifies the scope ('recent', 'other users', 'authenticated user'). No critical context is missing for selection or invocation.

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%, and max_results is fully documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a unique resource ('tweets that mention me'), clearly scoped to @mentions of the authenticated user. This differentiates it from siblings like get_timeline and search_tweets.

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 use when needing the authenticated user's mentions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_timeline or search_tweets. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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