im_message_comments

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action without disclosing the scanning behavior implied by parameters like scan_limit, scan_forward, and scan_start_chat_id. The agent is unaware that finding the comment chat may require scanning up to 5000 chat IDs, which is a significant behavioral trait.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy. However, it lacks additional structure or sub-sections to convey scanning behavior, though it is appropriately concise for the purpose statement.

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?

The description is inadequate for a tool with 9 parameters and a complex scanning mechanism. Without an output schema or annotations, the agent lacks information about return format, failure modes, and the search behavior, making it hard to invoke correctly in unexpected scenarios.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with detailed descriptions, so the description adds little beyond the context of a 'hidden comment-chat'. This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 the specific verb 'get' and clearly identifies the resource: comments on a channel publication from a hidden comment chat. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like im_thread_messages or im_chat_messages which target regular chats or threads.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the use case solely from the tool name and schema. With overlapping siblings like im_thread_messages, this is a gap.

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