get-task-comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds value that annotations can't provide: the exact return shape (id, type, subtype, createdAt, creator, body with mimeType/content, files), which matters because no output schema exists. It stops short of stating error behavior, e.g. what happens for an invalid or deleted comment ID.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose, then workflow guidance, then a compact example and a return summary. Every section earns its place, though the bolded 'Examples' and 'Returns' blocks are slightly verbose for a three-parameter read.

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?

For a simple read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the purpose, the source of the ID, the read-before-update workflow, and the return fields. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so all three IDs are already documented in the schema, and the baseline is 3. The example object shows the three parameters used together, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Get a single comment on a Dooray task with its full body.' The word 'single' and 'full body' explicitly distinguish it from get-task-comment-list, which is also named in the text.

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?

Explicitly says where the comment ID comes from ('from get-task-comment-list') and gives a concrete workflow instruction: 'Call this before update-task-comment to get the current body.' This names the alternative and the precondition that selects it.

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