get_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that all comments are returned, without describing ordering, pagination, permissions, or response format. This is a minimal disclosure for a read operation, but it leaves important behavior unstated.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences accomplish the purpose efficiently. Every word adds value, with no wasted content.

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?

While the schema documents parameters well, the description lacks context around the tool's behavior, such as pagination or whether 'all comments' is subject to maxItems. There is no output schema to describe return values, and no annotations to compensate, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture for a 5-parameter tool.

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 schema covers all 5 parameters with detailed descriptions, including enum values and nested field behavior. The description adds no additional parameter context, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('Get all comments') and identifies the resource ('a card'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_comment or get_attachments. The additional clause about viewing discussion reinforces the 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?

Provides a clear use case ('to see the discussion on a card') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This gives context without exclusions, warranting a 4.

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