wit_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly signals a safe read-only operation with 'Leitura' and hints at the response content (author, date, text). However, it omits pagination, ordering, and any auth or rate-limit context, making the disclosure only partially complete.

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 very short and front-loaded: it opens with the verb and object, then adds an explicit read-only label. Every word contributes; the slight redundancy between 'Lê' and 'Leitura' is acceptable because it adds an unambiguous safety signal.

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 tool, the description covers the main action and some return fields, but it does not explain the semantics of `top` or distinguish this tool from its siblings. Since there is no output schema, the author/date/text hint partially compensates but does not fully complete the picture.

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 schema only documents `project` (33% coverage), and the description does not explain `id` or `top`. The phrase 'work item' loosely ties `id` to the resource, and the read intent hints that `top` is a limit, but this is implicit rather than explicit. The description under-compensates for the schema coverage gap.

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 clearly states the action and resource: 'Lê a discussão de um work item' ('reads a work item's discussion') and reinforces its read-only nature with 'Leitura.' It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like wit_comment or wit_get, so it does not reach a 5.

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 is given about when to use this tool over wit_comment, wit_get, or wit_query. The description only implies a discussion-reading use case and offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing conditions.

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