Get Threads Mentions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safe read nature is clear. The description adds the specific context of @mentions. However, it does not disclose any further behavioral details such as pagination or authentication requirements. No contradiction with annotations.

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 brief and to the point, but it sacrifices useful information for brevity. It could be improved by including context about the response_format parameter or usage notes.

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 description covers the core purpose but omits the optional response_format parameter, which is defined in the schema but not explained in the description. For a tool with no output schema, the agent might benefit from knowing the response format options. Overall, the description is somewhat incomplete.

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 description only mentions the required parameter threads_user_id with a trivial label, while the optional response_format parameter is described in the schema but not in the description. With 50% schema coverage, the description should add more context but fails to do so.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves posts where the authenticated user was @mentioned, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like threads_get_posts and threads_get_replies.

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 provides no usage guidelines, such as when to use this tool instead of threads_get_posts or threads_get_replies. The agent would need to infer based on the purpose.

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