Get Tracker entity comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and idempotency are covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what a missing comment returns, what the expand parameter changes, or how permissions affect visibility.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no padding, so there is nothing to trim, but it is under-specified rather than deliberately concise and it never front-loads an action verb. Brevity here reflects missing content more than efficient writing.

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 three-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies no context about the response shape, whether expand materially changes it, or how it differs from the list and entity endpoints. The 100%-covered schema and read-only annotations cover the mechanics, but the description itself is essentially inert.

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 100% and all four parameters carry their own descriptions (entity_type values, id/shortId, numeric or longId, expand blocks), so the schema does the work. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which matches the baseline 3 for fully documented schemas.

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 fragment "A single comment on an entity by id" identifies the resource (one comment) and the lookup key (id), which implicitly contrasts with the sibling tracker_entities_comments_list. However it is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, so it never explicitly says it retrieves/returns a comment, and it does not name the list alternative.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative tracker_entities_comments_list or of tracker_entities_get. The singular 'a single comment' is the only hint, and the agent must infer the routing decision entirely on its own.

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