runrunit_get_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a safe read operation, but the description reveals nothing about the return shape, possible errors, permissions, or pagination behavior. It adds little beyond what the tool name already communicates.

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?

One concise sentence with no filler. The key information — operation, resource, lookup key, and platform — is all present and front-loaded.

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 single-ID getter with one required parameter, the description is sufficiently complete. No output schema exists, but the return value of a get-by-ID operation is self-evident. The lack of explicit safety annotations is mitigated by the read-only nature of the verb 'Get'.

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 parameter 'id' is already described as 'Comment ID' in the schema. The description repeats the by-ID concept but adds no additional semantic detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('a single comment'), and a specific retrieval key ('by ID'), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like runrunit_list_task_comments, runrunit_create_comment, and runrunit_update_comment. The scope 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 when an agent already has a comment ID and needs that one comment, but it offers no explicit guidance about when to prefer list_task_comments or other comment-related tools. The usage context is inferable but not stated.

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