get_comment

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, confirming no side effects. The description adds value by stating the return format ('Formatted string with the comment content and metadata') and explaining the effect of the 'include_anchor_text' parameter. It provides behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 succinct at ~10 lines, with a clear structure: opening verb statement, bulleted use cases, 'Args' section, and 'Returns' note. Every sentence serves a purpose, and key information is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or waste.

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 tool's simplicity (single resource retrieval), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter explanations, return format, and common use cases. It is complete for the complexity level, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need for extensive return details.

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 no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description fully carries the burden of explaining parameters. It provides clear explanations: 'comment_id: The comment ID to retrieve' and 'include_anchor_text: Whether to include the document text that the comment refers to'. While straightforward, this adds essential meaning and earns a 4.

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 starts with 'Retrieves a specific comment by its ID,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It lists distinct use cases (view details, reference, quote, check content, find a comment) that clearly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'list_document_comments' (lists all) and 'add_comment' (creates). The purpose is unambiguous and scoped.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (e.g., to view details, reference a comment, check content, find a comment mentioned elsewhere). It provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or contrast with siblings. The usage cases are well-defined, earning a 4.

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