get_post_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'retrieve' implying a read operation but doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if the post_id is invalid. 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 extremely concise with three short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Each sentence directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, input, and output, making it efficiently structured.

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 (retrieving comments), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format (e.g., structure of comment objects), error handling, or usage context, making it inadequate for full agent understanding.

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 adds minimal semantics by naming the parameter 'post_id' and stating it's for a 'given post', but schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no additional details. With only 1 parameter, the description compensates slightly but doesn't elaborate on format, constraints, or examples, resulting in a baseline score.

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 'retrieve' and resource 'all comments for a given post', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_post_top_commenters' or 'get_number_of_comments', which also retrieve comment-related data, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 such as 'get_post_top_commenters' for top commenters or 'filter_negative_comments' for filtered comments. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, offering only basic context without exclusions.

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