tg_mentions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so no safety re-statement is needed. The description adds meaningful behavior: the unread semantics, the distinction between mentions and reactions, and the brief mode's effect of dropping reactions, link cards, and edit times for a smaller triage-oriented payload.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one clear sentence, followed by a compact Args block. Every sentence contributes information, with no filler or redundant restatement of schema defaults.

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 read-only tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the returned content, all parameter semantics, and the trade-off of brief mode. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, but the description fully compensates: limit is explained as how many to return, kind gets plain definitions for each value, and brief's behavior is concretely described. Every parameter has meaning 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 opens with a concrete result: unread messages that mention you or unread reactions to your messages. This clearly identifies the resource and distinguishes it from broader unread/activity siblings like tg_unread or tg_activity.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when you need unread mentions or unseen reactions, with the kind parameter selecting which. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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