get_user_mentions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states basic functionality. It doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (though cursor parameter hints at it), return format, or whether results are real-time vs historical. For a read operation with 3 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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?

Perfectly concise single sentence with zero wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and couldn't be shorter while still conveying the basic function.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values) and a relatively simple input schema, the description covers the minimum purpose. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it should provide more behavioral context about rate limits, authentication, and result characteristics to be truly complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what user_id represents (numeric ID vs screen name), what count default/range means, or cursor's pagination role. However, the schema itself is clear with required user_id and optional count/cursor, providing baseline 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'tweets mentioning a specific user', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like get_user_tweets (user's own tweets) and get_retweets (retweets of a tweet). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from search_twitter which could also find mentions.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_twitter or get_quote_tweets. The description only states what it does, not when it's the appropriate choice among the many tweet retrieval tools available.

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