get_ticket_comments

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses no paging/cursor behavior, no side effects (doesn't mark read), and consistent 404 for inaccessible/nonexistent tickets. This is rich, precise behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise yet complete. Each sentence adds value: purpose, structure, pagination, side effects, error behavior. No filler or repetition. Front-loaded with the main output description.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the return format (two lists), ordering, pagination, side effects, and error semantics. It covers all critical aspects an agent needs to understand the tool's behavior. Very complete for a single-parameter read 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by adding meaning to the sole parameter task_uuid. It only vaguely references 'a ticket you cannot open', but never describes the parameter's role or format. With one obvious parameter, it's not catastrophic, but it fails the coverage requirement.

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 what the tool does: returns the discussion on a ticket as two lists (comments and events). It distinguishes from siblings like get_ticket (ticket details) and list_ticket_attachments (attachments) by explicitly mentioning the content and structure.

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 for reading and following a ticket thread, mentioning 'polling this to follow a ticket' and noting lack of side effects. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over write-oriented siblings like comment_on_ticket.

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