Get Threaded Replies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral context that it retrieves 'all replies' (indicating a list operation) and specifically for 'parent comments' (implying hierarchy). It doesn't contradict annotations and adds value by clarifying the scope of the returned 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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail. It's front-loaded with the action verb and resource, and every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the description is largely complete. It could benefit from mentioning the return format (e.g., list of reply objects) or any pagination behavior, but the output schema is absent and annotations cover the read-only and idempotent aspects. The description sufficiently explains the core behavior.

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 0%, and the only parameter, comment_id, is minimally described by its name and constraints (string, max 256). The description adds value by indicating that comment_id should be a parent comment's ID, but it doesn't elaborate on formatting or how to obtain the ID. With only one parameter, baseline is 4, but the lack of explicit parameter documentation in the description brings it to 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 'Get all replies beneath a ClickUp parent comment' uses a specific verb and resource, and clarifies that it operates on a parent comment. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on threaded replies, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for fetching replies under a parent comment, which implies a read-only usage scenario. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., get_task_comments) makes the use case clear. The 'parent comment' qualifier provides implicit guidance that this is for comment threads, not top-level comments.

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