get_mentions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key limitation ('scans up to 20 channels across all servers') and implies non-destructive read behavior, but it does not specify the recency window, sorting order, or return format beyond 'messages.' This is a moderate but incomplete disclosure.

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 front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and scope without filler. It is concise and appropriately sized for the tool's simple functionality.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description could have clarified return values or exact recency behavior. However, with only one optional parameter and a straightforward purpose, it remains reasonably complete for basic mention retrieval.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the 'limit' parameter with a default of 20, so the description need not add much. It does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already states, leaving the baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Find recent messages that mention you.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_messages and search_messages by focusing on mentions and by noting the cross-server scan scope.

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?

It implies usage context for finding mentions across servers, but does not explicitly state when to use this over search_messages or get_messages, nor does it mention any exclusions. The 'scans up to 20 channels' limitation is stated, but no alternative guidance is provided.

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