get_function_comment

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

The description indicates this is a read operation that retrieves a specific type of comment. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden, and it does state it reads data without side effects. However, it does not disclose what happens if no comment exists (returns null/empty?), or if the identifier is invalid, or if the comment can be in different locations.

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 communicates the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Read'. While concise, it could better use the space to address parameter semantics or usage context.

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 output schema exists, it reduces the burden on describing return values. However, with no annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide more context on how the function comment differs from regular comments (covered by 'get_comment') and clarify parameter usage for correct invocation.

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 clarify parameters. While it describes the tool's purpose, it does not elaborate on the 'identifier' parameter (what format? a function name or address?) or the 'is_repeatable' boolean (what does repeatable mean for this read operation?). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's parameter names.

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 it reads 'the function-level comment' and gives context about its location 'above/below the function header in disassembly'. The verb 'Read' specifies the action, and the resource is well-defined. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_comment' or 'get_all_comments', which also read comments.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_comment' (which might be general) or 'get_all_comments' (which retrieves all comments). The description does not mention prerequisites or whether the identifier must be a function address/name, leaving the agent to guess.

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