getCommentTree

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool's function without mentioning read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or return structure. This is insufficient for informed invocation.

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 very concise, using a single sentence that directly states the purpose. It is efficiently front-loaded, but could be slightly more structured to include usage context without becoming verbose.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description fails to provide needed context about what a comment tree is, what the output contains, and when to prefer this tool over siblings. The tool is simple, but the description does not adequately compensate for missing structured data.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter (storyId) described. The description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and no additional value is provided.

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 identifies the action (Get) and resource (comment tree for a story). It hints at a hierarchical structure, but does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like getComments or getStoryWithComments, which could also retrieve comments. The specificity is good but not fully differentiated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getComments, getStoryWithComments, or getComment. An agent would need to infer the appropriate scenario without any help.

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