comment_thread

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one useful behavioral fact: the thread is returned with all of its replies, which matters because 'reply' is a separate sibling tool and an agent might otherwise assume replies must be fetched separately. Nothing is said about auth, rate limits, or ordering, but the annotation bar is lower here.

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 short sentence with no filler; the scoping detail ('all replies') is front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but it wastes nothing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the read-only annotation covers the operation's nature. For a one-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient, but it never states the operation explicitly nor how the thread relates to the separate 'comments' and 'reply' tools.

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 coverage is 100% and the single thread_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the clarification that it is the top-level comment id. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is 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 phrase 'Одна ветка комментариев со всеми ответами' names the resource (a single comment thread) and its scope (including all replies), which does help distinguish it from the sibling 'comments' (plural listing). However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so the agent must infer that this is a retrieval operation rather than, say, a thread-management action.

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 guidance on when to call this versus 'comments' or 'reply'. The mention of 'all replies' hints at a relationship to the reply tool, but no condition or alternative is stated, so the agent has no routing rule.

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