Retrieves all comments in a Word document body, including author, text, resolved state, date, and replies, so AI agents can review feedback.
Read all comments in the document body: id, author, text, resolved state, date, and replies. Note: adding replies is not supported by the current Word.js API set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| documentId | No | Target document ID from list_documents. Optional when only one document is connected. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden: 'Read' signals a safe read and the note about the Word.js API limitation usefully warns that reply creation will fail here. However, it does not say whether threaded comments are included, whether the operation is paginated, or what happens on documents with no comments.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its returned fields, followed by a single caveat. No filler and nothing misplaced.
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?
With no output schema, the enumeration of returned fields usefully substitutes for a return-value spec, and the API limitation is disclosed. It stops short of clarifying the relationship to read_threaded_comments, which is the main gap for an agent choosing among comment tools.
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?
Only one parameter (documentId) exists and schema description coverage is 100%, covering the optional-when-single-document behavior. The description adds nothing about documentId or document selection, so baseline 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 and resource (read all comments in the document body) and enumerates the returned fields (id, author, text, resolved state, date, replies). It does not differentiate itself from the very close sibling read_threaded_comments, which an agent could easily confuse with it.
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?
Usage is only implied by 'document body' and by the closing note that adding replies isn't supported, which gestures at reply_to_comment/resolve_comment as the mutation alternatives. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus read_threaded_comments or when comments might not exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.