Get Commit Comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description does not contradict these and adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., it mentions the comment is on a commit, but no additional traits like caching or rate limits). With rich annotations, the bar is lower, and the description adds some value by clarifying the scope.

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 8 lines, with the main purpose in the first line. The Args section is structured and clear. However, the 'Returns: Commit comment details' line is redundant because an output schema exists, adding unnecessary verbiage. Overall, it is well-organized and front-loaded.

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 the moderate complexity (4 params, 3 required) and the presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains all parameters and their optionality. It does not explain how to obtain the comment ID or hash, but that is external knowledge. With output schema handling the return value, the description adequately covers the tool's interface.

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 add meaning. It lists all parameters in the Args section with brief explanations (e.g., 'commit: Commit hash', 'workspace: Workspace name (optional, defaults to configured workspace)'). While basic, this provides essential context missing from the schema titles. However, it lacks format details (e.g., hash length, comment ID format), so it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 'Get a specific comment on a commit.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('comment on a commit'), which is unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_commit_comments (which lists comments) and get_pull_request_comment (which retrieves a comment on a pull request).

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?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_commit_comments or get_pull_request_comment. It implies usage by stating its purpose, but lacks when-to-use or when-not-to-use context. The sibling list includes many similar retrieval tools, so more guidance would help.

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