get_ticket_comments

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that comments include internal agent notes (sensitivity) and that results are paginated for large tickets. It does not state read-only behavior but is otherwise transparent.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and follows with usage guidance and a behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage scenario, and pagination behavior. However, it doesn't describe the return format or structure of comments, which would be helpful given the lack of an output schema.

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 100% and parameter descriptions are clear. The description adds context about pagination but does not provide new meaning beyond the schema. It reinforces defaults already present in the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'comment thread for a ticket', specifying both public replies and internal notes. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_ticket by mentioning the scenario where comments were excluded.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: after calling get_ticket without include_comments:true. It implies a specific context, though it doesn't mention when not to use or compare with other tools for retrieving comments.

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