get_review_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It proactively states the sorting order (newest first) and the edge-case behavior of returning an empty list when no reviews exist or the file is corrupted, which is valuable transparency beyond the basic 'get' semantics.

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—two sentences total—yet packs in the core purpose, sorting behavior, and edge case handling. There is no fluff or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter schema and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool returns, ordering, and empty/corrupted behavior. It does not explain the return item structure, but that is documented by the output schema, so the description is sufficiently 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'for a design' but does not explain what design_id should be (e.g., format, meaning) or how it is used. The parameter is intuitive from the tool name, but the description adds no substantive semantics beyond the schema.

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 'Get review comments for a design' using a specific verb and resource. It also clarifies that it returns all review batches sorted by created_at descending, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_review_comment and save_review_batch.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is the read counterpart to the save review tools, but it does not state explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use scenarios or name any alternatives.

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