get_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only, non-destructive operation ('Read the comment'), which is fine. However, it does not disclose what happens if no comment exists at the address, the return format, or whether setting `is_repeatable=True` changes behavior significantly. The mention of repeatable comments adds some transparency, but gaps remain.

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 two sentences and 18 words, very efficient. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states the action, the second clarifies a parameter. No wasted words, though the second sentence could be slightly more explicit (e.g., 'To read repeatable comments, set is_repeatable=True'). Still, it's concise and front-loaded.

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 (2 params, output schema exists), the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the core action and one parameter nuance. However, with siblings like `get_function_comment` and `get_all_comments`, it would be helpful to mention that this tool reads comments on arbitrary addresses (not just functions). The output schema likely covers return values, so that's mitigated. Overall, a minimal viable description.

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. It explains `is_repeatable` ('Set is_repeatable=True for repeatable comments'), adding value beyond the schema's bare boolean. However, `address` is only implied as 'at an address' with no format, type, or example. This is partial coverage, earning a 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 clearly states 'Read the comment at an address' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `set_comment` (write) and `get_function_comment` (function-specific comments) and `get_all_comments` (all comments). The mention of the `is_repeatable` parameter further clarifies the tool's 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `get_function_comment` or `get_all_comments`. It also does not explain when to set `is_repeatable=True` beyond a brief mention. The agent must infer these distinctions from context, which is inadequate.

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