Fetch comments for a Weeek task by ID, ordered oldest first, and return each comment's author and text.
List a task's comments, oldest first, with their author and text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the sort order (oldest first) and the fields returned (author, text), which is real behavioral value, but it says nothing about pagination/limits, whether deleted comments are included, or any permission requirements.
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 filler; the verb, scope, ordering, and return payload are all packed in without repetition.
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 one-parameter read with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials — what is listed, in what order, and what each item contains. Pagination or result-size behavior is the only notable gap.
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 0%, so the schema documents nothing beyond the type. The phrase "a task's comments" confirms task_id identifies the parent task whose comments are fetched, but adds no format, range, or sourcing detail beyond the self-explanatory name.
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 ("List a task's comments") and even adds scope details: ordering (oldest first) and the returned fields (author, text). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling write operations add_task_comment, update_task_comment and delete_task_comment, though it never names them explicitly.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite statement, and no mention of alternatives such as weeek_get_task or the comment mutation tools. The read intent is only implied by the verb "List", leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.