comments_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the behavior of including resolved threads, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose output shape, pagination, or any rate limits, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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, well-structured sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the key action ('Read all comments') and adds the important qualifier ('including resolved threads') without any filler.

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 simple, single-parameter, read-only tool, the description is largely complete: it states the action and the scope. The absence of an output schema means the description could have specified the return format, but 'Read all comments' gives a clear high-level expectation. Missing details like metadata or ordering are minor for this use case.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'for a document' confirms the documentId parameter refers to a document, but it does not elaborate on how to obtain or format the ID beyond the schema's pattern. With a single, self-explanatory parameter, this partial compensation is adequate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('all comments, including resolved threads'), immediately distinguishing it from siblings like comment_add (a write operation) and document_read (reads document content, not comments). The scope 'including resolved threads' adds precision that no other sibling covers.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, no mention of exclusions, and no context about when reading comments would be appropriate. An agent gets no help deciding between comments_read and similar read tools.

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