Get work package comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful behavior—comments are ordered oldest first, and status changes without an accompanying comment are omitted—which goes beyond the tool name and helps an agent predict output.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the essential behavior and constraints with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the ordering/filtering detail adds necessary specificity without bloat.

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 simple read-only tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is largely complete: it specifies scope, ordering, and an important filtering rule. It could mention the return shape slightly more explicitly, but the tool name and schema make this a minor gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'id' and 'limit' parameters well. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond referring to 'one work package,' so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('comments on one work package'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_work_package by focusing on comments rather than the work package itself.

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 clear context: use this tool to read comments for a single work package. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling tools are distinct enough that no exclusion is necessary.

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