clickup_get_comments

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral value by disclosing pagination and the 25-per-page size. It stops short of covering the return shape, ordering, or whether pagination is cursor-based (start_id) vs offset-based (start).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the pagination constraint in parentheses. No filler, nothing redundant.

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 read tool with fully documented parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema (so return values need not be described), the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is not clarifying how start and start_id interact when paging.

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%, so all three parameters (task_id, start, start_id) are already documented in the schema. The description's pagination note is consistent with those params but adds no syntax or format detail beyond them. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get comments on a task'), which clearly separates it from write-side siblings like clickup_create_comment and clickup_update_comment. It doesn't explicitly name the closest alternative (clickup_get_replies), but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and by 'on a task', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as clickup_get_replies (comment threads) or clickup_create_comment. Nothing misleading, but nothing that actively steers selection either.

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