backlog_get_comments

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It explains the return structure (comments with author, date, text, changelog) and pagination mechanics. No side effects are mentioned, but as a read operation, this is acceptable.

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?

Three concise paragraphs; the first explains the return value, the second describes pagination. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. Could be slightly more condensed, but no wasted sentences.

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 5 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, the description covers the return structure and pagination adequately. It explains how to page forward/backward. Missing an explicit note that parameters are optional, but the schema already indicates that.

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 adds value by detailing how to use minId/maxId for pagination (e.g., 'maxId = lowest comment ID - 1'), which is not in the schema descriptions. This incremental guidance justifies a 4.

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 comments for a Backlog issue' and specifies the returned fields (author, date, text, changelog). It distinguishes from sibling tools like backlog_get_issue (single issue) or backlog_get_attachments, leaving no ambiguity.

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 explicit pagination guidance using minId/maxId, which is a key usage pattern. While it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool, the sibling tools are all different operations, so the intended use case is clear.

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