Get task comments

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description is not required to state that it is read-only. The description adds useful context about ordering by creation time and the fields returned, but this is not extensive behavioral disclosure. It does not contradict 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by return field details. There is no redundant information or filler; every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the purpose, ordering, and return fields. However, it does not specify the ordering direction (ascending/descending) or mention any potential pagination or limits, leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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 fully describes the only parameter (task_id) with format uuid and description 'Task UUID', giving 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond referring to 'a task', so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 all comments for a task ordered by creation time', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling comment tools like add_task_comment, update_task_comment, and delete_task_comment by focusing on retrieval and listing the return fields.

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 clear context: this tool retrieves all comments for a task. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or include exclusions. The usage is obvious given the tool's purpose, but it lacks explicit guidance about when not to use it.

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