get_chat_view_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. It doesn't disclose pagination behavior, ordering of returned comments, whether only top-level comments are returned, or any auth requirements. Given there are 3 parameters (start, start_id) suggesting pagination, the lack of behavioral detail on this is a meaningful gap.

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 with no wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded.

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 retrieval tool with pagination parameters, undocumented sibling differentiation, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain pagination semantics, comment ordering, the relationship between start/start_id, or how this differs from other comment-getting tools. Given the 3 parameters and complex sibling landscape, it should do substantially more.

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?

Schema coverage is only 33% (only view_id has a description). The description adds no param information at all, and the two pagination parameters (start, start_id) are completely undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states the verb ('Get') and resource ('comments from a Chat view'), which is clear. However, it doesn't distinguish among the many sibling comment tools (get_task_comments, get_list_comments, get_threaded_comments), and 'Chat view' is ambiguous without context on what a Chat view is versus other view types.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives like get_task_comments, get_list_comments, or get_threaded_comments. No context is provided for when a Chat view exists or what differentiates it from other view types.

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