read_comments

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and resource, without mentioning whether the operation is non-destructive, how errors are handled, whether authentication is required, or what the output shape is. The read-only nature is implied by the verb 'read' but not explicitly disclosed.

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, concise, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 one-parameter read operation with an output schema, the description provides a minimal viable understanding of what the tool does. However, it lacks usage context, parameter semantics, and behavioral notes, so it is not fully complete for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the meaning, format, or expected values of the required 'path' parameter. It only implies that the path identifies a note, leaving the agent to infer what kind of path is expected.

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 a specific action ('Lit les commentaires') applied to a specific resource ('d'une note'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. It also effectively distinguishes itself from the sibling tool write_comments by focusing on reading rather than writing.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_note, list_notes, or write_comments. The read/write contrast with write_comments is implied but not stated, and there is no mention of prerequisites or context for using the tool.

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