Get a specific comment

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation (no contradiction). It adds minor context about optional stargazers but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication requirements. Given annotations already declare safety, no further issues.

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?

Single sentence that directly states purpose and optional feature. No redundant information. Front-loaded and efficient.

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-only get-by-id tool with 3 parameters, the description covers the core action and optional inclusion. It does not describe return format, but given no output schema and tool simplicity, this is acceptable. Could mention that it returns a comment object for added clarity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the optional 'include' parameter as 'stargazers' and provides guidance for 'teamName' (use esa_get_teams first). This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 specifies the verb 'Retrieves' and the resource 'a specific comment by comment ID', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that list comments or perform mutations. It also mentions optional stargazers.

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?

While not explicitly stating when to use this tool vs alternatives, the description provides clear context: it is for retrieving a single comment by ID. The teamName parameter includes a usage hint to use esa_get_teams first, which aids correct invocation.

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