get_comments

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' is consistent. It adds value by listing specific return fields and mentioning threaded replies and optional range-anchored fields, which go beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions are present.

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 consists of two sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Get all comments from the document') and then expand with relevant details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is efficiently structured for quick parsing by an AI agent.

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 has a single parameter, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return values (IDs, authors, dates, text, anchored paragraph IDs, and optional span fields). The mention of threaded replies and supported formats completes the picture for a read-only comment 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a single 'file_path' parameter described as 'Path to the DOCX or ODT file.' The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with a clear verb+resource combination ('Get all comments from the document') and lists specific fields (IDs, authors, dates, text, anchored paragraph IDs). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_comment or delete_comment by focusing on retrieval. The mention of range-anchored DOCX comments and threaded replies adds specificity without ambiguity.

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 states it supports DOCX and ODT formats and is read-only, which implicitly guides when to use (read scenarios) versus write operations (e.g., add_comment, delete_comment). It does not explicitly exclude use cases or list alternatives, but the context of sibling tools provides sufficient differentiation.

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