get_comments

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

The description is minimal, stating only the action and output fields. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (likely, but not confirmed), any required permissions, pagination behavior, or how the optional parameter affects results. With no annotations to supplement, the description fails to provide crucial behavioral context.

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 concise with a single sentence that directly states the purpose and output. However, it omits important details about the parameter and scope, which could be added without sacrificing conciseness. The structure is front-loaded with the action, which is good, but the lack of completeness reduces the score slightly.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers what the tool outputs but fails to explain the parameter, behavior when omitted, or the context (e.g., does it require an open document?). The existence of an output schema (not shown) partially mitigates the return value gap, but the description still lacks essential usage and behavioral information.

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 has a single parameter 'document_handle' with 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not mention or explain this parameter at all. An agent has no way to infer its purpose (e.g., document ID, path, or filter), making it effectively unusable without external knowledge.

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 the action ('List all comments') and the fields returned (ID, author, date, text), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it lacks context for the scope: the optional 'document_handle' parameter suggests filtering by document, but the description implies a global list, creating ambiguity. This slight vagueness prevents a top score.

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 like 'list_comment_threads', 'add_comment', or 'delete_comment'. It also does not mention prerequisites (e.g., document must be open) or the behavior when the optional 'document_handle' parameter is omitted. This leaves the agent without information to choose correctly.

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