getUserMentions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves posts but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'pagination_token' but not explained), or what the output looks like (e.g., format, error handling). For a read operation with 10 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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: 'Get posts that mention a specific user.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's function. Every part of the sentence earns its place by directly stating what the tool does.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, or output format, which are crucial for a retrieval tool. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to help an agent use the tool effectively, but it falls short.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default values, or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the existing documentation.

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 purpose: 'Get posts that mention a specific user.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('posts that mention a specific user'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getUserTimeline' or 'searchAll,' which might also retrieve user-related posts, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a user ID, or compare it to siblings like 'getUserTimeline' (which might show posts by a user) or 'searchAll' (which could search for mentions). Without this context, an agent might misuse it or overlook better options.

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