retrieve_work_item_comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating no side effects. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as rate limits or data freshness. It is consistent but does not add value beyond the annotations.

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?

Description is front-loaded with the main action, followed by a structured Args and Returns section. It is efficient and easy to parse, though the Args section could be more concise by integrating into the main sentence.

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 retrieval operation with readOnlyHint and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the essential information: what it retrieves, the required IDs, and the return type. No obvious gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage (only types), but the description adds parameter names and a brief explanation ('UUID of the project', etc.). This compensation is helpful, and for retrieval, the parameter semantics are clear.

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?

Description clearly states 'Retrieve a specific comment for a work item.', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_work_item_comments (which retrieves all comments) and create/update/delete.

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 implies usage when a single comment is needed by ID, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_work_item_comments for fetching multiple comments. It provides clear context but lacks exclusions.

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