get_comments

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden and adds meaningful behavioral context: it mentions that comments are threaded with indentation to show reply depth and that dead/deleted comments are skipped. This goes beyond a simple 'get comments' and helps set expectations for output format and content filtering.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, no fluff, and the key information is front-loaded. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential return format (threaded, indented) and a key filtering behavior (skipping dead/deleted). It lacks details like pagination or order, but given the tool's simplicity, it is fairly complete.

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 already covers all three parameters with clear descriptions (depth, limit, story_id), so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is 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 clearly states the tool retrieves threaded comments for a Hacker News story, which is a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like search or get_user, though it shares possible overlap with get_item, but the focus on 'threaded' and 'indentation' makes the purpose clear.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_item. The description implies usage for fetching story comments but does not state when not to use it or mention any prerequisites/alternatives, offering minimal directional value.

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