get_threaded_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it returns replies in order, which is a read operation with no destructive behavior. It does not mention authentication or limitations, but for a simple list operation, the description is sufficiently transparent.

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 action and output, followed by usage guidance. Every word is essential, no redundancy.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description compensates by listing returned fields and ordering. It is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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 100% for the single parameter 'comment_id', with the schema already providing a clear description. The tool description reiterates the parameter's role ('under a parent comment') but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers, hence baseline score of 3.

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 tool lists threaded replies under a parent comment, with ordering ('oldest first') and specifies returned fields (id, text, author, date). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_task_comments by focusing on threaded replies under a specific parent.

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: 'Use to read a full comment thread after spotting a parent comment.' It implicitly tells when to use (after having a parent comment ID) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives. This is adequate for a simple tool.

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