get_user_mentions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite having a cursor parameter), or the structure of the output.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), which is efficient, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose but lacks supporting context.

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 the presence of a cursor parameter for pagination and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the scope of mentions (e.g., recency), pagination semantics, or how to interpret results. The output schema may compensate, but the description itself is insufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only implies user_id via 'specific user', but gives no information about count or cursor (e.g., default values, format, null handling). The agent has no guidance on parameter usage beyond the schema structure.

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 'Get tweets mentioning a specific user' succinctly states the action (get) and object (tweets mentioning a user), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_user_tweets (tweets by user) or get_tweet_by_id (single tweet). It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

While the description implies this tool is for mentions versus other tweet retrieval tools, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives (e.g., for recent mentions, with pagination). No exclusions or context are given.

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