get_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get details' suggests a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., structured data or raw text). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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: 'Get details of a specific comment.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what 'details' include, how to obtain the commentId, or potential errors. For a read operation with no structured output, more context on return values or usage scenarios would enhance completeness, leaving gaps in agent understanding.

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 1 parameter ('commentId') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic context. The description adds minimal value by implying the parameter identifies a 'specific comment', but doesn't explain format (e.g., UUID), sourcing, or validation. Since schema coverage is low, the description partially compensates but remains inadequate for full understanding.

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 details of a specific comment' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('comment'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's vague about what 'details' entail and doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'list_document_comments' or 'get_document', which might also retrieve comment-related information. It avoids tautology but lacks specificity.

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 a comment ID), exclusions, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'list_document_comments' (which might list multiple comments) or 'get_document' (which could include comments). Without such context, usage is implied but not explicit.

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