Get Comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'pagination support', which adds some context about handling large datasets, but fails to cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (e.g., structure of comments).

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's function and key feature (pagination). There is no wasted text, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 the complexity of a tool that retrieves data with pagination, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, performance), output structure, and usage context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('id' and 'page'). The description adds minimal value by implying the tool fetches comments for an article and supports pagination, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already states, such as pagination behavior details or format constraints.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('comments for an article'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_article' or 'add_comment'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools beyond the sibling list provided, such as if there were a 'get_all_comments' tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions pagination support but doesn't specify when pagination is needed or how it relates to other tools like 'get_article' or 'search_articles', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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