Get Collection Comments (GraphQL)

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

Annotations already mark this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: newest-first ordering, inclusion of first replies, and the GraphQL cursor pagination mechanism. It stops short of describing the return shape, but the annotations carry the main safety burden.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what the tool reads, which identifiers to pass, how to paginate, and which sibling handles writes. Nothing is redundant.

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 the main read and pagination behavior and identifies the write alternative, but it omits the return shape and does not resolve the identifier requirement (whether comment_thread_id or slug is required, and which to prefer). For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no required fields, this leaves some ambiguity.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate, and it does clarify comment_thread_id, slug, and after. However, it does not explain how game and first factor into the call, nor does it state that one of comment_thread_id/slug is required despite the schema listing no required fields.

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 opens with 'Read a collection's comments', a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this from sibling write tools such as post_collection_comment, edit_collection_comment, and delete_collection_comment. It also adds ordering ('newest first') and scope ('with first replies'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

It gives explicit call guidance: pass comment_thread_id from get_collection or slug, and paginate with after equal to endCursor. It also names the write alternative, post_collection_comment, so an agent knows when not to use this read tool.

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