get_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves data (implying read-only) and describes the return format ('Formatted string with comment content and metadata'), which is helpful. However, it lacks details on error handling, permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured with distinct sections (purpose, usage guidelines, args, returns) and uses bullet points for readability. It is appropriately sized, though the usage guidelines section is slightly verbose—every sentence earns its place by providing actionable guidance.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, parameters, and return format. It could improve by addressing error cases or permissions, but it provides sufficient context for a read operation with two parameters, making it mostly complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: comment_id ('The comment ID to retrieve') and include_anchor_text ('Whether to include the document text that the comment refers to'), adding clear semantic meaning beyond the schema's basic types. This covers all parameters adequately, though not exhaustively.

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 specific action ('Retrieves a specific comment by its ID') and the resource ('comment'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_document_comments (which lists multiple comments) or add_comment (which creates rather than retrieves). The verb 'retrieves' is precise and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios in a bulleted list ('Use this tool when you need to...'), including specific cases like viewing details, referencing, checking content, and finding mentioned comments. This clearly differentiates it from alternatives like list_document_comments for bulk operations.

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