get_comment

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

The description states that the tool returns a 'formatted string with the comment content and metadata,' which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). There is no contradiction 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a bulleted list of use cases, and an args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's purpose, parameters, and return format. Given its simplicity (2 parameters, read-only), it is mostly complete. However, it does not mention error handling or behavior when the comment ID is invalid, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by detailing both parameters: comment_id and include_anchor_text, explaining that the latter controls whether to include the referenced document text. This compensates for the lack of schema 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 'Retrieves a specific comment by its ID,' providing a specific verb and resource. It lists concrete use cases (view details, reference/quote, check content, find comment) that distinguish it from siblings like list_document_comments and add_comment.

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 explicitly outlines when to use the tool with a bulleted list of scenarios. While it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives directly, the context is clear enough for an AI agent to select it appropriately.

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