test_retrieve_comments

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only says 'List comments', which implies a read operation, but does not confirm safety (no destructive behavior stated). It does not disclose pagination behavior or that it requires a block_id. The description provides minimal behavioral context.

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 extremely concise (3 words), but it is under-specified. It lacks essential details needed for correct usage. Conciseness should be balanced with completeness; here it sacrifices too much information.

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?

Despite having an output schema and only 3 parameters (1 required), the description fails to provide complete context. It does not explain what 'comments' are, how they relate to blocks, or how pagination works. The agent would need to rely on parameter names and output schema alone, which may be insufficient.

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 should explain parameter meanings. It does not describe block_id (required), start_cursor (pagination), or page_size (result limit). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but lack explicit clarification. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 states 'List comments', which is a clear verb+resource. It matches the tool name 'retrieve_comments' and indicates the action. However, it does not specify that comments are associated with a block (implied by required block_id parameter). It distinguishes from sibling tools that perform other actions (create, update, delete) or retrieve different resources.

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 vs alternatives like test_create_comment or test_retrieve_block. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a block_id), nor any context about use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters.

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