Get Mentions

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), and the description goes beyond them by explaining a non-obvious behavioral rule: muted channels are still included by default because mute only suppresses unread badges, and include_muted=False changes that. Return format and pagination are left unstated, but an output schema exists to cover them.

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?

Two short sentences: the resource and ordering come first, then the only non-obvious caveat. No restatement of the tool name, no filler.

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?

With annotations, a full-coverage schema, and an output schema, the description only needed to add the non-obvious behavioral caveat, which it does. It stops short of noting result-shape or cursoring behavior, but the output schema and limit parameter make that low-risk.

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 coverage is 100%, so limit and since are already fully documented and baseline would be 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining the semantics behind include_muted — what muting actually does and why the default is True — which the schema description alone does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('posts that mention the authenticated user') with scope and ordering ('newest first'), so an agent can distinguish it from get_channel_posts or search_posts. It does not explicitly name the sibling it displaces, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the mentions-feed framing rather than stated: there is no explicit 'use this instead of search_posts when…' guidance and no prerequisites (e.g. auth requirements) mentioned. The muted-channel note is a usage nuance for one parameter, not a when-to-use rule.

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