tasks_comments

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'get comments', implying a read operation but not detailing return format, error behavior, authentication, or pagination. This is insufficient for full transparency.

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 that directly conveys the tool's purpose. It contains no unnecessary words or redundant information, and is front-loaded with the key verb and object.

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 clear purpose, but the lack of an output schema and usage guidelines leaves gaps. The description doesn't explain return value structure or when to use this over related tools, making it minimally complete despite low complexity.

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 fully documents task_id with a description, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the schema is the primary source of parameter information, making the baseline 3 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 'Получить комментарии задачи' clearly states the action (get) and resource (task comments), distinguishing it from sibling tools like tasks_comment_add (add comment) and tasks_search_comments (search comments). It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tasks_search_comments or tasks_comment_add. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.

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