Get Threads Mentions

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

Annotations carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds one behavioral detail beyond annotations: the scope restriction to the authenticated user's mentions. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or ordering behavior, leaving gaps for a list-retrieval tool.

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 sentence followed by an Args section that mirrors the schema parameters. It is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, though the Args lines are slightly redundant with the schema.

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?

This is a straightforward read-only list tool with two parameters (one required) and no output schema. The description covers the essential purpose and the required parameter, but offers no detail on what the returned mention data looks like, how results are ordered, or whether pagination exists — minimal but adequate for a simple fetch.

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 describes response_format (enum with markdown/json), while threads_user_id has no schema description. The description documents threads_user_id but only as 'Threads user ID,' which barely adds meaning beyond the parameter name itself. Schema coverage is 50%, and the description only partially compensates for that gap.

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 action and scope: 'Gets posts where the authenticated user was @mentioned.' This clearly differentiates from threads_get_posts (all posts) and threads_get_replies (replies), though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings or call out the distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With over 150 sibling tools including several Threads read tools (threads_get_posts, threads_get_replies, threads_search), the description offers no context on when this specific mentions query is appropriate compared to those similar options.

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