get_activity_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 but only states the basic action. It doesn't reveal whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results (though parameters suggest it), or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 3 parameters.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get comments for an activity'), making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the behavioral context (e.g., pagination behavior implied by parameters), return values, or usage constraints, leaving the agent with inadequate information to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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 description mentions 'an activity' which aligns with the 'id' parameter (Activity ID), but adds no further semantic context beyond what the schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately documents all parameters (id, page, per_page) with their purposes and defaults.

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 'Get comments for an activity' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('comments for an activity'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_activity' or 'get_activity_kudos', which also retrieve activity-related data but for different resources.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an activity ID), exclusions, or comparisons with similar tools like 'get_activity' (which might include comments) or 'get_activity_streams' (which provides different activity data).

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