get_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load. It usefully discloses the content scope (user comments plus cell-level annotations) that the parameter schema does not convey, but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, pagination, or how much history is returned.

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 object of retrieval is stated immediately. It is terse rather than verbose, though the terseness edges into under-specification.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a retrieval tool with an undocumented required parameter and no annotations, the description omits permissions, scope of results, and any usage context, leaving it minimally complete.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'In a Webi document' implies webi_doc_id identifies the target document but gives no format, expected ID source, or error behavior, leaving the parameter only partially explained.

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 ('Retrieves') and a specific resource ('collaborative user comments and cell annotations') scoped to 'a Webi document'. It is unambiguous what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name or contrast itself with any sibling.

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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no statement of what the caller needs beforehand (e.g., the document must be saved/accessible). Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'in a Webi document'.

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