Read Paperclip comments

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses important behavior: results come back either inline or as a new immutable snapshot path, and comments are not automatically fresh. This adds meaningful operational context.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct useful guidance.

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 read-only fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers the core return behavior (Markdown, inline vs. snapshot path) and incremental fetching. It leaves some parameter semantics unexplained, but the essential invocation context is sufficiently communicated.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It explains after_comment_id, but provides no guidance for issue_id, limit, order, or all_fields. Most parameter semantics remain undocumented.

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 a specific action ('Fetch issue comments as Markdown') and identifies the exact resource (issue comments). It distinguishes this read operation from the sibling write tool paperclip_comment_add without ambiguity.

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 gives practical usage context, especially the guidance to use after_comment_id for deltas instead of replaying the full thread, and to call again for fresh comments. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the read-vs-write distinction is implied by the title and sibling set.

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