get_comments

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

The description adds a significant behavioral caveat beyond the annotations: Arctic Shift archives posts immediately and backfills vote data after ~36h, making score and num_comments placeholders. This warns the agent against reporting fake counts, which is essential context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context and a clearly marked caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must carry more weight. It covers purpose, usage, and a critical data caveat, which is adequate for a bulk lookup tool. It doesn't explain markdown vs. raw output, but the schema covers that via the 'raw' parameter. Overall it feels complete given the complexity.

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 covers all 4 parameters with full descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying what kind of IDs to supply (from reply markers or permalinks) and that lookups are bulk. This helps the agent understand the 'ids' parameter beyond its schema description.

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 a specific action ('Look up comments in bulk by id') and identifies the resource (comments) and method (by id). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on bulk id lookup, contrasting with search-based or thread-level tools.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for comment ids from '[+N more replies]' markers or resolved permalinks. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough to avoid confusion with search_comments or get_thread.

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