blog_commentaires

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no ordering, pagination, whether comments are threaded or flat, or whether the caller needs access to the blog. It restates the resource and stops.

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 five-word sentence with no filler and a front-loaded resource, so there is nothing to trim. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than discipline — it is concise at the cost of being informative.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description is the only place that could tell an agent what a 'commentaires' result looks like (author, body, timestamp, threading), and it says nothing. Combined with undocumented required parameters, the definition is too thin 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 0% and both parameters are required, yet the description explains neither blog_id nor billet_id — it only echoes 'billet de blog'. The parameter names are somewhat self-describing, which keeps this above a 1, but with zero schema documentation the description should have compensated and does not.

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 blog post's comments) and, combined with the readOnlyHint, an agent can infer a retrieval operation. But it is a bare noun phrase with no verb (list/get/fetch), so the action itself is only implied, and it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from the near-named siblings blog_commenter and blog_supprimer_commentaire.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of alternatives (blog_billets for posts, blog_commenter for writing comments), no preconditions, no note on when this tool is appropriate versus sibling blog tools. The only usable signal comes from the name and annotations, not the description.

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