Base Wework Get Task Comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'get comments' which implies a read-only operation, but does not mention pagination behavior (suggested by 'method', 'position' parameters), error handling, or whether it returns comments in order. There is no mention of authentication requirements or rate limits. The description is minimal and does not add beyond the basic action.

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 in Vietnamese. It is appropriately sized and front-loads the core purpose. There is no filler or repetition. While it is brief, it is not overly verbose and does not waste words.

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 that there is an output schema (the response schema may explain the return format), the description need not detail return values. However, the tool has 4 parameters, including pagination-related ones (method, position) that are undocumented. The description is too sparse to guide correct invocation, especially for optional parameters that likely control pagination. Since no annotations exist, the description should provide more context but does not.

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 compensate for the lack of parameter explanations. The description does not explain any of the three non-required parameters (method, position, access_token) or the required task_id. Even the required task_id is not described beyond its name. The description adds no clarity beyond what the schema already shows.

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 action ('Lấy danh sách') and the resource ('các bình luận trong một task' - comments in a task). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like base_wework_get_task or base_wework_get_task_logs, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. Slight deduction for language barrier (Vietnamese) and lack of explicit differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description says only 'get comments in a task' but does not explain when to prefer this over base_wework_get_task or base_wework_get_task_logs. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., need a task_id) or context that would help an agent decide.

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