get_work_item_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' indicates a read-only operation, and 'full discussion' suggests the complete set of comments is returned. However, it does not disclose potential pagination, ordering, or error behavior, leaving some gaps in behavioral transparency.

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. The main action is front-loaded, and the parenthetical adds valuable technical context without unnecessary verbosity. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

For a simple, single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description and schema together provide complete information. The agent knows what the tool does (gets full discussion), what input is needed (work item id), and the relationship to the broader API. No further details are necessary for correct selection and invocation.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter with the description 'Work item id.' The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('full discussion for a work item'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_work_item (which retrieves the work item itself) and get_comment_details (which likely gets a single comment). The parenthetical about the separate endpoint further clarifies its purpose.

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 strongly implies the intended use case: to fetch the complete comment thread for a work item. The note that this is a separate endpoint not part of $expand guides the agent away from using get_work_item's expand option. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for exclusions, but the context is clear enough.

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