wp_comments_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the edit context includes author email, which is a useful behavioral nuance not evident from the schema. It also implies read-only behavior via 'Fetch'. However, it does not explain the effect of other context values (view/embed) or what happens if the comment is not found, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 sentence of ten words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple fetch 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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), but the description is still lean. It covers the main purpose and one behavioral detail (author email in edit context), yet it omits information about return structure and the behavior of non-edit contexts. Given that the description is the only source of guidance, this leaves some context incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It clarifies 'id' implicitly by saying 'by id', and it partially explains the 'context' parameter by noting that edit context includes author email. However, it does not define the 'view' or 'embed' contexts, nor does it mention that 'edit' is the default, leaving the parameter semantics incomplete.

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 'Fetch a single comment by id', which specifies the action (fetch) and resource (comment) with a precise identifier. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wp_comments_list (list), wp_comments_create, update, delete, and other comment tools. The added detail about author email and edit context does not obscure the core purpose.

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 usage when you have a comment ID and need its details, as indicated by 'by id'. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. There is no referral to wp_comments_list for broader queries, so the guidance is solely implied rather than explicit.

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