cairn_read_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds the chronological ordering and pagination semantics, which is useful, but it does not cover return shape or pagination termination when no output schema 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?

Two short sentences, appropriately sized and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the second sentence spends its budget on two parameter names that are not in the schema, which is wasted and partly misleading text.

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-parameter read tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description leaves post_id and limit undocumented and confuses cursor with next_cursor. An agent would need to inspect the raw schema to call this correctly and still lacks guidance on choosing it over sibling thread readers.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it references 'next_cursor' and 'parent_comment_id', neither of which exists in the schema. The real parameters (post_id, cursor, limit) go entirely unexplained, and the mismatched names could lead an agent to pass the wrong argument.

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 ... comments page') with a scope qualifier ('next chronological flat'). It does not name the obvious sibling cairn_read_thread, so the agent must infer that 'flat' means this tool is not the nested-thread reader.

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 only guidance is 'Pass next_cursor unchanged', which addresses pagination flow but names a cursor argument that does not exist in the schema. There is no statement of when to use this tool instead of cairn_read_thread, and no prerequisites or ordering conditions.

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