get_comments

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, so the description's job is lighter. The phrase 'full comment tree' usefully implies nested, complete comments for the post. However, it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or behavior for posts with no comments; these are minor for a simple read tool.

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 extremely concise, with no filler or repeated information. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's output, and the key qualifier 'full comment tree' is front and center.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description names both the resource and the expected return shape. It could be more complete with an explicit verb or a note about nested comment structure, but the total information is likely sufficient for correct invocation.

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 the single permalink parameter includes a concrete example. The description itself adds no additional detail about the parameter format, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource (a post's comments) and the return shape (full comment tree), which is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling comment tools like get_search_comments or get_user_by_name_comments. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', so it stops short of a fully specified purpose statement.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention get_search_comments, get_user_by_name_comments, or any exclusion, leaving the agent to infer from the permalink parameter that this is for a single post's comments.

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