get_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool gets top comments and optionally summarizes them, but it doesn't reveal critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'top' means (e.g., by likes, recency). This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how the tool behaves in practice.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just one sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and optional feature. Every word earns its place without any redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or output format, and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema. For a tool that retrieves and potentially summarizes comments, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it effectively.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all parameters (video_id, top_n, summarize) with their types and defaults. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only implying the optional summarization feature, which is already covered in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no additional param info in the description.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get top comments for a video' specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('top comments for a video'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_video' or 'get_transcript', which might also involve video-related data retrieval, so it lacks sibling differentiation for a perfect score.

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. It mentions an optional summarization feature but doesn't explain when to use 'summarize' or how this tool compares to siblings like 'search_transcripts' or 'get_video' for video analysis tasks. Without any usage context or exclusions, it falls short of providing helpful guidance.

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