get_mentions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the core read behavior and scope (tweets mentioning the authenticated account), but does not disclose ordering, pagination, count semantics, or whether replies/quote tweets are included. The 'Get' verb implies non-destructive behavior, but richer context is absent.

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, clear 8-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no redundancy, fluff, or unnecessary detail, making it appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, simple read) and no output schema, the description conveys the essential purpose and return type (tweets). However, gaps remain: the parameter's function is unexplained, result ordering and limits are unspecified, and the return structure is unknown. It is minimally viable but not thorough.

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 single parameter 'count' has 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description never mentions it. The agent must guess from the parameter name and schema constraints (min=1, max=100, default=20) that it limits the number of returned tweets. The description fails to compensate for the schema's missing documentation.

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 identifies a precise resource ('tweets that mention the authenticated account'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as search_tweets (general search), home_timeline (followed users' tweets), and get_notifications (broader notification feed).

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 its use case—retrieving mentions of the authenticated user—but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like search_tweets or get_notifications. No exclusions, prerequisites, 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.