get_all_comments

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals that the tool retrieves both regular and repeatable comments and accepts a function name or address. However, it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, the format of returned data, or how 'within a function' is defined (e.g., comments at instruction level).

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, efficient sentence that conveys all key points. It avoids fluff and front-loads the action and scope, though it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., listing input types).

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is mostly complete. It covers what the tool does and how to specify the function. However, it lacks edge case handling (e.g., undefined function) and a brief usage distinction from similar tools like get_comment.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by stating that the identifier parameter can be a function name or address. This clarifies usage beyond the bare schema definition, though it could be more specific (e.g., address format).

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 the resource 'all comments within a function', specifying both regular and repeatable comments. This distinguishes it from sibling comment tools like get_comment (single comment) or get_function_comment (function-level comment).

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need all comments in a function) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_comment or set_comment. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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