threads_get_mentions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it declares the required threads_manage_mentions permission and warns that without advanced access only mentions by app testers are returned, which is a meaningful data-completeness caveat. It stops short of covering pagination or result shape, which is the only notable gap.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the access caveat is packed into a parenthetical rather than a separate paragraph. The core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the caveat.

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 simple filtered-list read with one fully documented optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, permission requirement, and result-limiting caveat. It lacks only a note on pagination or result volume, a minor omission at this complexity.

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?

There is a single optional 'fields' parameter and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, including the full default field list. The description adds no field-selection guidance, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a precisely scoped resource: public Threads posts where the authenticated user is @mentioned by another profile. That scope alone distinguishes it from siblings like threads_get_posts (own posts) and threads_get_replies (replies to your posts) without needing to name them.

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 usage ('where the authenticated user has been @mentioned') and states a prerequisite scope, but it never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition. An agent must infer that threads_get_conversation or ig_get_mentioned_comments cover adjacent cases.

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