cigchat_team_ticket_item_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET) and the authorization scope, indicating a read operation, but does not explicitly state the absence of side effects or describe pagination/response behavior beyond the schema.

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 sentence packs the action, resource, endpoint, and required scope with zero fluff. Every element serves a purpose, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 description covers the basic purpose, the HTTP method, and scope, but given the lack of an output schema and the two undocumented required parameters, an agent would need to infer what listId and listItemId refer to)Skip. No return structure or pagination behavior is described beyond the schema's limited parameter notes.

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 50%, leaving listId and listItemId undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description does not explain these required parameters or how they relate to the ticket, failing to compensate for the gap.

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 ('Get comments and attachment URLs') and the resource (a ticket), with the endpoint for precision. It distinguishes from the sibling 'cigchat_team_ticket_item_add_comment' by the verb 'Get' alone, but does not explicitly name the alternative or scope out what it is not.

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 implies usage when you need to retrieve comments for a ticket, and mentions the required 'Manage Team' scope as a prerequisite. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons to alternatives like the add_comments sibling.

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