rest_get_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Read' indicates this is non-mutating, but the description does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or whether the file must have comments. This is acceptable but not highly informative.

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 one compact sentence that leads with the action and resource. It is slightly wordy ('collaboration feedback, review threads, and pins' could be simpler), but every major element is useful and there is no redundant filler.

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?

The definition is complete enough for a simple single-parameter read operation: it identifies the resource and what will be retrieved. It does not describe the response shape or pagination, but given the simplicity of the tool and the clear 'Read' framing, no critical invocation detail is missing.

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 100%, with the single fileKey parameter already documented as 'Figma file key'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names a concrete resource ('collaboration feedback, review threads, and pins'), making it clear this retrieves comments from a Figma file. It is naturally differentiated from siblings like rest_post_comment by being explicitly a read operation.

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 the use case: call this when you need to read collaboration feedback or comments on a file. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as rest_post_comment for writing comments, leaving the routing to inference.

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