find-comments

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already convey the non-mutating nature. The description adds no extra side-effect information, but it does not contradict the annotations either. Given the annotations cover the key behavioral aspects, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, clear sentence that conveys all essential information without unnecessary elaboration. It is well-structured and easily parsed.

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 description covers the input requirements and the purpose. While it does not specify the return format, for a straightforward find operation this is not critical. The absence of output schema is not a major gap given the simplicity of the 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 description adds the mutual exclusivity rule that is not evident from the schema alone, which is vital for correct usage. However, it does not elaborate beyond that; the schema descriptions for individual parameters are minimal, but the description compensates with the exclusivity constraint.

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 finds comments by task, project, or ID, and the verb 'find' specifies a read-only search operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find-tasks or find-projects by focusing specifically on comments.

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 explicitly states that exactly one of taskId, projectId, or commentId must be provided, which is a crucial usage constraint. While it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, the tool's purpose is unambiguous for comment lookup scenarios.

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