Get Comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning that it is a read-only operation, whether pagination is applied, or any side effects. The schema hints at a limit, but the description does not explain how results are ordered or limited.

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, concise sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. The key action and resource are stated upfront, and nothing extraneous is included.

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 getter with a complete schema and an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but the schema's limit parameter and the output schema likely cover those details. The description is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, covering both page_id and limit. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already documents the parameters adequately. Baseline 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 description uses a specific verb ('gets') and a specific resource ('comments of a page'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_page, create_comment, or get_page_history. Even without naming alternatives, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage for fetching comments on a page, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There is no alternative comment-listing sibling, so the absence of exclusions is acceptable, but the tool does not state any context or prerequisites.

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