get_comments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates a read-only action via 'List' and adds the non-obvious ordering guarantee 'oldest first.' It does not mention pagination, authentication, or error behavior, but these are minor for a simple read-only list.

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 eight-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word adds meaning; there is no redundancy, filler, or unnecessary background.

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 low-complexity read-only list with fully documented parameters, the description covers the resource, scope, and ordering. No output schema exists, but 'list the comments' adequately signals the return; missing auth and error details are not critical for correct invocation.

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 already describes both parameters at 100% coverage, including that project_id identifies the task's project. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond 'on a task,' 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?

States a specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('comments on a task'), and an ordering constraint ('oldest first'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like post_comment and update_comment, which mutate comments, and from get_task, which returns the task itself.

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 makes the tool's context clear: use it when you need the comments belonging to a task. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the read-only listing purpose is unambiguous and no sibling tool competes for the same job.

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