paperclip_get_comment

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, matching the read-only nature of fetching a comment. The description adds value by specifying the returned object fields (id, body, authorId, authorType, createdAt) and error handling (401, 404 with remedies). No contradiction exists.

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 well-organized with headings (Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling). It is concise yet comprehensive, with no wasted sentences. Every section adds essential information.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explicitly lists the returned fields. It also covers error cases and usage context. For a simple fetch tool, this is fully complete.

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 100% so baseline is 3. The description enhances parameter semantics by providing examples (e.g., 'PAP-42' for issueId, 'cmt_abc123' for commentId) and clarifying their role, particularly that commentId is a UUID. This adds context beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 'Fetch a single comment by ID' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tool paperclip_list_comments by noting it is typically for the triggering comment from a wake event.

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?

Explicitly provides use cases: 'Use when: PAPERCLIP_WAKE_COMMENT_ID is set' and 'Don't use when: you need all comments on an issue — use paperclip_list_comments instead'. This clearly guides the agent on when to select this tool.

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