comments_2

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get post comments' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what format the comments are returned in. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 very concise with two short sentences, making it front-loaded and efficient. However, the second sentence 'Use comment_id from post' is somewhat ambiguous and could be clarified, slightly reducing effectiveness. Overall, it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Get post comments' returns (e.g., list of comments, their structure, or how to handle the 'comment_id' dependency). For a tool with zero structured data, more detail on behavior and output is needed to be fully helpful.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds value by implying a dependency on 'comment_id from post', which suggests context or prerequisites not captured in the schema. This compensates for the parameter-less design, earning a baseline above 3.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get post comments' specifies the verb (get) and resource (comments). It distinguishes from sibling 'comment_by_id' by implying it retrieves multiple comments rather than a single one. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'comments' which appears to have a similar name and purpose.

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 provides minimal guidance: 'Use comment_id from post' suggests a prerequisite or context but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'comment_by_id' or 'comments'. No explicit when/when-not instructions or comparison to sibling tools are provided, leaving usage unclear.

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