List Recipes By Slug Comments

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation with the word 'Get,' but it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, authentication requirements, whether only top-level comments are returned, or how accept-language affects results.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so brief that it omits useful context; it is concise but borderline under-specified.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape is covered elsewhere. The tool is simple enough that an agent can likely invoke it by supplying the required slug, but the description still does not clarify ambiguity with sibling comment tools or the optional accept-language parameter, making it only minimally 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter. 'slug' is inferable from the tool name, but accept-language is entirely undocumented in terms of format, purpose, or effect on the response.

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 'Get all comments for a recipe' clearly identifies a read/list operation with a specific resource (comments) and a specific scope (per recipe). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_comments or get_comments_by_item, but the recipe-scoped focus is clear from both name and description.

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 such as list_comments or get_comments_by_item. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues are provided beyond the implied recipe association.

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