get_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 discloses that the tool retrieves multiple comment types and includes function comments when relevant, which adds behavioral context beyond a simple 'get'. However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or the format/scope of returned data, leaving gaps for a read operation.

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 concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose and scope, and the second adds a critical behavioral nuance. It's front-loaded with essential information and efficiently structured.

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 one parameter with full schema coverage and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is reasonably complete. It clarifies the types of comments retrieved and the function comment inclusion, which adds value beyond structured fields. However, for a tool with no annotations, it could better address behavioral aspects like error handling or data format.

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%, with the parameter 'address' documented in the schema. The description adds semantic context by explaining what 'address' means in this context (e.g., that it can be within a function to trigger additional comment retrieval), but doesn't provide syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'all comments at the specified address', specifying the types of comments included (regular, repeatable, anterior, posterior) and the special case for function comments. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_comment', 'delete_comment', and 'set_comment' which modify rather than retrieve comments.

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 comments at an address are needed, including function comments when applicable. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_metadata' or 'get_struct_at_address' that might also provide comment-like information, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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