kickstarter_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that only the first page is returned, the typical page size (40-60 comments), that total_count reflects the real total, and the structure of each comment. This is strong behavioral transparency for a read-style tool, though it does not mention rate limits or pagination mechanics beyond page one.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then adds return contents and parameter examples. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler or repetition.

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-style tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, the partial-feed nature, and how to construct parameters. It does not explicitly explain how to retrieve subsequent pages or whether that is possible, but given the tool's design, this is sufficiently complete.

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% for the two required parameters, but the description adds significant meaning by explaining that creator and slug are the two path segments of the project URL and providing a concrete example (lookingglass and musubi). This goes well beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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 gets a Kickstarter campaign's comments, specifies the resource (campaign comments feed), and details the return fields (author, creator status, timestamp, text). It also explains the parameter semantics with a concrete URL example, making it distinct and actionable.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (for a campaign's comments feed) and how to derive the required parameters from the project URL. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list shows no direct competing comments tool for Kickstarter, so the guidance is adequate.

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