get_comments_by_activity_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only operation' and details the required scopes (activity:read vs activity:read_all) depending on the activity's privacy setting. This adds valuable context beyond the raw schema and helps the agent anticipate authorization requirements.

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 well-structured: it starts with a clear title and endpoint, then a one-line summary, followed by scopes and a read-only note. It is compact and front-loaded with the essential purpose. No unnecessary repetition or filler.

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 list endpoint with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior (returns comments), permission requirements, and indicates the operation is read-only. Pagination parameters are documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat them. The only minor gap is not describing the response format, but this is acceptable given the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the tool.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented. The description does not add any additional parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline for high-coverage schemas. It does not introduce ambiguity or conflict with the schema.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair: 'Returns the comments on the given activity.' The tool name itself is equally explicit, and the endpoint is provided. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., get_kudoers_by_activity_id), but its purpose is unambiguous and distinguishable by name.

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?

It is implied that this tool is used to fetch comments for a specific activity, and no alternative tools are mentioned. It does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, but the purpose is obvious enough that an agent would correctly select it without further context.

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