comment_by_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 states 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format might be. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with user data.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence ('Get comment by comment id'), front-loaded with the core purpose. There's zero wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail in other dimensions.

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 complexity of retrieving a comment (likely involving user data and potential privacy considerations), no annotations, no output schema, and a sparse description, this is incomplete. The description doesn't explain what a 'comment' is in this system, what data is returned, or any behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here, earning a baseline score of 4 as it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 comment by comment id' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('comment'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'comments' or 'comments_2'. It specifies retrieval by ID but lacks detail on what a 'comment' entails in this context.

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 such as 'comments' (which might list multiple comments) or other comment-related tools. The description implies it's for retrieving a specific comment by ID, but there's no explicit mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to siblings.

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