discussion_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic purpose and parameter meanings, omitting details like pagination behavior, ordering, or any side effects (though likely none). The output schema (present externally) is not referenced, but the description does not actively mislead.

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 (three lines) and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the parameter descriptions are presented as plain text rather than structured, which slightly reduces readability.

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 retrieval tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose and parameter semantics. It lacks usage guidelines and sibling differentiation, leaving gaps in context. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, so overall it is adequate but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining discussion_id as numeric and page_size as number of comments with a max of 50. However, it does not mention the default value of 20 (which is inferable from schema) or elaborate on the output structure.

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 for a discussion). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like discussion_comments_search or discussion_detail, which could cause confusion.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as discussion_comments_search (for filtered queries) or discussion_detail (for metadata). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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