گزارش‌های (کامنت‌های) وظیفه

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'oldest first' ordering guarantee and the response contents (author, date, replies, mentions, attached files), which is useful context but not rich behavioral disclosure such as result limits.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It packs ordering and field info without waste, though the sentence is dense enough that it borders on relying on the reader to parse its clauses.

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 single-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden well by enumerating author, date, replies, mentions, and attached files plus ordering. The main gap is any mention of result size or pagination for long comment threads.

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%, so task_id is already documented in the schema, including where to obtain it. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Comments / progress reports on a task') and enriches it with ordering and content details. It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings like mizito_get_task_extras or mizito_get_messages, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and never names an alternative or exclusion. The purpose implies the context but the definition leaves selection between comment-fetching siblings entirely to inference.

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