zernio_get_post_comments

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It correctly identifies the operation as a read (Get all comments) and lists return fields, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, authorization needs, or idempotency. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentences: first states the action and primary purpose, second details the returned data. No redundant information, well front-loaded.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, parameter origins, and return content. It could mention pagination or authentication scope, but overall it 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?

Both parameters (postId, accountId) have descriptions that add value: postId tells the user where to obtain it (from zernio_list_commented_posts), which is helpful for usability. AccountId identifies the owner. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description enhances the schema's built-in documentation.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'comments on a specific post', and details what is returned (full thread, replies, author names, timestamps, comment IDs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zernio_list_commented_posts (which lists posts) and zernio_reply_to_comment (which acts 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 implies usage context (retrieve comment data needed to reply or moderate) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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