get_my_mentions

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive), the description explains the local merge and heuristic for approximating replies, and explicitly discloses filtering of bot posts and notification-template pings along with a reported dropped count. This is significant behavioral context not visible in annotations or schema.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with purpose, then implementation details, then parameters. Every sentence adds meaningful information, with 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers operations, filtering, and parameters thoroughly. Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly describe the output shape beyond 'analyzed locally' and 'dropped count is reported', but the output schema exists to cover that.

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 has zero description coverage for parameters, but the description's Args section explains 'days' as lookback window, 'max_results' as max items per section, and 'instance' as YouTrack instance. That fully compensates for the schema gap.

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: retrieving mentions and likely replies from comments that need the user's attention. It uses specific verbs and resources ('Mentions', 'Possible replies') and distinguishes it from generic comment or issue tools. The first sentence alone tells an agent exactly what this tool surfaces.

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 defines when to use this tool: when the user needs to see what needs attention in comments. It also differentiates from siblings by naming the underlying queries and the local analysis heuristic. It does not explicitly say 'use X instead, but the distinction between mentions/replies and other comment/issue tools is clear from the context.

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