get_api_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get comments') without detailing traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'cursor' and 'limit' parameters but not explained), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the return format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.

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 wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects like the nature of comments, pagination behavior, or return format, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to effectively use this tool.

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 input schema already documents all parameters (apiId, cursor, limit) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining comment types or pagination context. This meets the baseline score of 3 since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 comments for an API' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('comments for an API'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what type of comments (e.g., user feedback, code annotations, review threads) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_api' or 'get_api_tags', leaving ambiguity about scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if this is for retrieving all comments, filtered comments, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'create_api_comment' or 'update_api_comment'. The absence of context or exclusions leaves the agent without usage direction.

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