gorelo_get_project_task_comment

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's only job is to add context — and it adds none. It says nothing about behavior when the comment, task, or project ID is invalid, whether it returns deleted comments, or if any permission scoping applies.

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 nine-word sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is lean to the point of under-specification, which is a completeness problem rather than a conciseness one.

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 read-only get-by-id tool with a fully documented three-parameter schema and a readOnlyHint annotation, this is close to adequate. The remaining gap is the absent output schema combined with no description of the returned comment's shape or not-found behavior.

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% — each of projectId, taskId, and commentId is documented with its parent-child relationship — so the baseline of 3 applies. The description confirms the three IDs form a hierarchy (project → task → comment) but adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Returns one comment on a task") with the singular scope implied by "one". It is clear, but it never names the sibling that lists many comments (gorelo_list_project_task_comments) or the one that creates them, so the agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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 reach for this tool versus gorelo_list_project_task_comments or gorelo_get_project_task. The get-by-id shape is implied by the required IDs in the schema, but the description contributes no usage guidance or preconditions.

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