get_comments_for_paragraph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'extract comments' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires file access permissions, what format comments are returned in, if there are rate limits, or error handling for invalid paragraph indices. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, focused sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information immediately.

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 tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'extract' means in practice, what format comments are returned in, or how paragraph indexing works. Given the lack of structured data support, the description should provide more operational context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description provides no additional semantic information about 'filename' (e.g., path requirements, supported formats) or 'paragraph_index' (e.g., zero-based vs one-based indexing, valid range). The description mentions 'specific paragraph' but doesn't clarify how paragraph identification works, failing to compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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 comments') and target resource ('for a specific paragraph in a Word document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_comments' or 'get_comments_by_author', which would require more specific scope clarification.

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_all_comments' or 'get_comments_by_author'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios independently.

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