Get article comments

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the result (threaded comments) but does not explain authentication requirements, pagination, error behavior, or read-only nature beyond the verb 'get'. This is insufficient for full 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 a single short sentence, front-loaded with the key action, and contains no redundant or filler content. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite low complexity (one parameter), the description lacks essential context: no output format, response structure, or error handling. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide at least a basic expectation of what the tool returns, which it does only vaguely with 'threaded comments'.

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 does not provide any additional meaning for 'articleId'—no format, examples, or source for the ID. The phrase 'for an article' only repeats the parameter name.

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 ('Get') and resource ('threaded comments for an article'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like devto_get_article or devto_list_articles. The term 'threaded' adds specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply states the action without contextualizing it among the sibling tools.

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