gorelo_get_project_comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens if the commentId does not exist, whether comments from other projects are rejected, or what the returned payload contains. For a pure getter the bar is lower, but no added context is 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification as much as tight writing.

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?

With low complexity, a fully documented two-parameter schema, and readOnlyHint covering safety, the description is minimally sufficient for calling the tool. However, with no output schema and no mention of return contents or not-found behavior, an agent cannot predict what it will receive.

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 100% and both projectId and commentId carry inline descriptions, so the schema already does the parameter work. The description adds no format, scoping, or constraint information beyond that, which makes the baseline 3 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 gives a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('one comment on a project'), and the word 'one' distinguishes it from the sibling gorelo_list_project_comments. It stops short of naming that sibling or otherwise explicitly differentiating, so it is clear but not fully disambiguated.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool rather than gorelo_list_project_comments or gorelo_create_project_comment, and no preconditions or alternatives are mentioned. An agent must infer that this is the single-item lookup path from the tool name alone.

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