get_all_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions extraction but doesn't specify output format, error handling, permissions needed, or whether it's read-only or destructive. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of extracting comments (which could involve structured data), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'extract' entails—e.g., format, pagination, or error cases—leaving the agent with incomplete context for proper use.

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 implies a 'filename' parameter is needed for the Word document, but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't add details like file path format, supported extensions, or handling of non-existent files. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema 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 action ('Extract') and resource ('all comments from a Word document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_comments_by_author' or 'get_comments_for_paragraph', which would require 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_comments_by_author' or 'get_comments_for_paragraph', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for usage. It merely states what the tool does without indicating appropriate scenarios.

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