get_task_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 adds no behavioral context: no mention of pagination behavior, ordering, rate limits, or whether this returns only top-level comments vs nested replies. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a minimal disclosure.

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 zero waste. However, it is under-specified for the tool's capability — 'all comments' plus pagination parameters (start, start_id) implies more complexity than the short description addresses. It's concise but borderline terse.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must carry more weight. It fails to mention the return format, ordering guarantees, whether threaded replies are included, or how pagination works with the start/start_id cursor parameters. For a tool with 5 parameters and related sibling comment tools, this is notably incomplete.

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 description coverage is 60% with 5 parameters. The description contributes nothing about parameters beyond the schema. team_id and custom_task_ids have no schema descriptions, and the description does not compensate for these gaps. However, it does not actively mislead either. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial 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 'Get all comments on a task' clearly states a specific verb (Get) and resource (comments on a task). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_list_comments, get_chat_view_comments, and get_threaded_comments, which operate on different comment scopes.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs get_threaded_comments or get_list_comments. The description doesn't clarify relationships between task comments and threaded comments, nor does it note any pagination caveats despite having start and start_id parameters. Sibling tools operating on comments exist, but no differentiation is provided.

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