retrieve_work_item_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It does not mention permissions, return codes, or error handling (e.g., 404 if not found). The agent is left guessing about side effects or requirements.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action, but the extreme brevity may miss opportunities to add useful context, balancing efficiency with completeness.

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 nature of the tool (retrieve by IDs), an output schema exists, and schema fully describes params, the description is minimally complete. However, lack of behavioral details like response format hints or error cases reduces 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 has 100% coverage with descriptions like 'UUID of the project', etc. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond this, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'specific comment for a work item', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_work_item_comments by focusing on a single comment retrieval.

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 using this tool to get a specific comment, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over list_work_item_comments or provide exclusions. Minimal guidance is given, making it adequate but lacking.

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