get_wiki_comments

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

The description does not disclose whether the operation is read-only or any side effects. With no annotations provided, the description fails to convey safety or behavioral traits. It does not mention authentication requirements or rate limits.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but front-loaded with the tool's purpose. However, it could be restructured to include parameter details without excessive length.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, pagination (if any), or how the limit parameter affects results. Sibling tools suggest a wiki context, but no usage context is provided.

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 defines three parameters (pageId, limit, includeHtml) but the description adds no semantic value beyond the field names. With 0% schema description coverage, the lack of parameter explanation is a significant shortcoming.

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 tool retrieves a list of Confluence page comments and specifies return fields (body, author, time, evidence signals). It is distinct from sibling tools like fetch_wiki_page or get_wiki_attachments. However, it does not explicitly mention that a pageId is required, though this is evident from the schema.

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 information is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch_wiki_page for full page content or search_wiki for searching. There is no guidance on prerequisites or context.

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