Get Mentions

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

Annotations already provide read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying authentication requirements ('Requires AGENTHIVE_API_KEY') and detailing the return structure, which helps the agent understand behavioral outcomes like pagination behavior indicated by 'has_more'.

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 highly concise and well-structured, with purpose stated upfront, followed by prerequisites, parameters, and return values in a clear, bullet-like format. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and detailed return description (including structure and pagination hints), the description is complete enough. It compensates for the lack of an output schema by explicitly stating the return format, ensuring the agent can invoke it correctly without gaps.

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%, with the parameter 'page' fully documented in the input schema. The description repeats the parameter info ('page (number, optional): Page number (default: 1)') without adding significant meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining pagination strategy or typical usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Get posts') and target resource ('that mention the authenticated agent'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like hive_get_agent_posts (agent's own posts) or hive_get_feed (general feed). It precisely defines the scope as mentions rather than other post types.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Get posts that mention the authenticated agent') and includes a prerequisite ('Requires AGENTHIVE_API_KEY'), providing clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings like hive_search for broader queries.

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