message_getMentions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get' which implies a read operation, but does not explain what happens when no mentions exist, whether it returns a list, or if it requires both chatId and messageId to be valid. This is minimal transparency.

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 extremely concise: a single short sentence with a [Message] prefix. Every word is necessary, and it is front-loaded with the context tag. This is ideal conciseness 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?

The tool is simple (3 params, no output schema), but the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain the purpose of chatId and messageId, how to obtain them, what the return value looks like, or how this differs from message_getGroupMentions. Contextual gaps remain.

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%, so all three parameters (chatId, messageId, sessionId) are already documented with examples and descriptions. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning about how these parameters relate to the tool's behavior, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get the contacts mentioned' clearly states a specific verb (get) and resource (contacts mentioned), with the [Message] prefix indicating it operates on a message context. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool message_getGroupMentions, which likely has a similar purpose for group 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like message_getGroupMentions, nor any context on prerequisites or typical scenarios. It is a bare statement with no usage instructions.

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