Get My Mentions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scoping detail of 'across all Teams channels and chats' and the recency filter, but does not disclose behavior like ordering, pagination, or handling of missing tenantId. Since annotations carry the heavy lifting, this is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and scope. It contains zero fluff and every word earns its place.

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 read-only tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is fairly complete. It clearly states what it does and its scope. It could mention the return format or ordering, but given the lack of an output schema and the simple nature of the tool, nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so all four parameters (size, hours, tenantId, contentFormat) have detailed descriptions in the input schema. The description itself does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 clearly states the tool's action (find recent messages) and resource (mentions for the current user) with an explicit scope (across all Teams channels and chats). It is easily distinguishable from siblings like get_channel_messages or search_messages, which target different resources or scopes.

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 a clear use case—retrieving mentions for the current user—but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_messages or when not to use it. It lacks exclusions or alternative tool names, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the scope stated.

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