Retrieve Comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying that the tool requires 'read comment' integration capabilities and that it retrieves only unresolved comments. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose and scope, second adds a requirement. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the key verb and resource.

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, the description should explain return values. It does not describe the structure of returned comments (e.g., fields included). While it covers parameter details, the lack of return value information makes it incomplete for a retrieval 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description provides detailed guidance for the 'format' parameter (when to use json vs markdown), specifies the block_id format, and explains the 'response_mode' parameter's usage. This adds meaning beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 tool retrieves unresolved comments from a Notion page or block, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like notion_create_comment and notion_retrieve_page by focusing on comments and specifying 'unresolved', making its purpose unique.

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 implies usage for reading comments but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., notion_create_comment). It lacks guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites beyond the 'read comment' capability. Sibling differentiation is minimal.

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