list_my_mentions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature ('조회 전용'), scope behavior (current workspace/project default, project_id override), date format, search semantics, and preview truncation (server cuts at 100 chars). This goes beyond typical descriptions and covers key behavioral traits.

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 well-structured with a clear lead sentence, a usage-context paragraph, and bullet-point parameter explanations. Every segment adds value: purpose, differentiators, parameter semantics, and preview caveat. No wasted words despite being detailed.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no annotations, and the presence of sibling tools, the description is fully complete for selecting and invoking the tool. It covers purpose, scope, parameter behavior, and output limitations (preview truncation, fallback to list_task_comments). The output schema handles return structure, so no further explanation is needed.

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%, so the description must explain all parameters. It thoroughly explains mention_type (with values 'mentioned'/'authored'/'both'), project_id scope override, date_from/date_to format (YYYY-MM-DD), and search (partial match on comment body). Only 'limit' is not explicitly described but its default and meaning are self-evident, so this is a minor omission.

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 it retrieves a list of comment mentions related to the user, sorted by latest. It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_my_notifications by noting it scans comment bodies rather than notifications, and also references list_task_comments for full content.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: '댓글 본문을 훑는 용도다 — 어떤 태스크에서 무슨 이야기가 오갔는지 확인할 때 쓴다' (for scanning comment bodies to see what was discussed). It also contrasts with list_my_notifications and advises using list_task_comments for full content when previews are truncated.

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