Get a change request comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the behavioral burden is partially lifted. The description adds the API endpoint but no additional behavioral context (e.g., return format or side effects). It does not contradict annotations.

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 sentence plus the path in parentheses, making it very concise. It front-loads the action. However, it could include a bit more detail (e.g., the return type) without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should mention what the tool returns. Additionally, the 'body' parameter allows query parameters like limit and page, but the description does not explain this or its usage. The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, requiring more context than provided.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add any new meaning beyond the schema; it merely repeats the parameter names in the path. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get a change request comment', which is a specific verb and resource. Among siblings, it distinguishes itself by specifying the change request context. The inclusion of the API path reinforces the purpose.

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 gitbook_get_comment_in_space or gitbook_get_comment_reply_in_change_request. There is no mention of prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from name alone.

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