workspace_get_external_result_mentions

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Return...'. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what happens if result_id does not exist, or whether results are paginated or ordered. The 'get' naming implies safety, but the description itself does not carry the behavioral transparency burden.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and its source, making it appropriately concise for such a simple 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?

The tool has low parameter complexity and an output schema, so the brief description is not catastrophic. However, it omits useful context about what 'external result mentions' are and how this tool relates to external-import planning or other result getters, leaving an agent to infer that from the sibling list.

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 schema only labels result_id as 'Result Id' with no description. The description adds meaning by indicating that the ID belongs to a result whose proof evidence is searched. It does not specify ID format, how to obtain it, or what counts as an 'external result mention,' so it only partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 ('Return') and resource ('external result mentions') and identifies the source ('from a result's proof evidence'), so an agent can tell what the tool returns. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as workspace_get_citations or workspace_get_evidence, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over closely related siblings like workspace_get_evidence, workspace_get_citations, or workspace_plan_external_imports_for_result. The phrase 'from a result's proof evidence' provides a data source, but not selection context or exclusions.

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