get_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the behavioral trait of including threaded replies, which is helpful. However, it lacks other behavioral details such as ordering, pagination, or authentication requirements. For a read operation, this is minimal but not thorough.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the key information: action, resource, and scope. There is no filler or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and what it returns (comments with threaded replies). It doesn't detail the return structure, but for a simple get, this is sufficient. The sibling list further adds context, justifying a score above 3 but below 5.

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 provides full coverage of the only parameter (articleId) with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond aligning with 'on an article'. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get all comments on an article, including threaded replies' clearly states the action (get), the resource (comments on an article), and the scope (including threaded replies). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like post_comment (write operation) and get_ratings (different resource type).

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 clearly implies it is for retrieving comments on an article, and the sibling list provides context (e.g., post_comment is for posting, get_ratings for ratings). However, there is no explicit statement about when not to use this tool or mention of alternatives, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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