get_mentions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only (implied but not stated), any rate limits, pagination behavior, or the definition of 'recent'. The term 'tags edge' is vague and not explained.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it is too concise to the point of omitting useful context. Score 4 for efficiency but not 5 due to lack of completeness.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values, but it lacks context about the scope of 'recent', pagination, and how this tool relates to many siblings. The description is minimal and does not fully equip an agent to decide when to use it.

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 0%, yet the description does not explain the parameters. While 'limit' and 'account' are somewhat self-explanatory, the description should add value by specifying defaults, constraints, or behavior (e.g., 'account defaults to current account'). It adds nothing beyond the schema.

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 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'recent media where the account is @-mentioned'. It also mentions 'tags edge', which hints at a unique endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_media' or 'get_hashtag_media'.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context like 'use this to find mentions, not for general media listing'.

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