comment_by_id

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

There are no annotations to rely on, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, return format, potential errors, or side effects. It is a bare label that provides no transparency beyond the tool name.

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 under-specified rather than concise. It is a single vague phrase that does not earn its place because it fails to communicate the tool's function adequately, similar to a tautological label.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description remains incomplete for tool selection. It does not clarify which type of comment (contact, task, project, or general) this tool handles, leaving ambiguity given the many sibling comment tools. The sparse description is insufficient for an AI agent to correctly choose this tool.

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% description coverage, with each parameter (id, fields, sourceId) explained. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the schema already carries the burden, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 'Комментарий по номеру' (Comment by number) merely restates the tool name 'comment_by_id' with no explicit verb or scope. It does not clarify what action is performed (e.g., retrieve, get) or distinguish this from sibling comment tools like comment_list or contact_comments.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Among many sibling tools for comments, this omission is critical.

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