retrieve_work_item_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states that a WorkItemComment object is returned, which is useful, but does not explicitly mention that the operation is read-only, or describe error behavior such as 404 when the comment does not exist. The verb 'retrieve' implies non-mutation, but minimal disclosure beyond that.

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 appropriately small and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by concise Args and Returns sections. No filler or redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (3 required parameters, no nested objects, no annotations, and presence of an output schema), the description covers the essential information. It specifies the input parameters and the return type. It does not address potential errors or edge cases, but for a simple retrieval tool, this is largely sufficient.

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 provides only parameter names and types without descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by listing each parameter with a brief definition: 'UUID of the project', 'UUID of the work item', 'UUID of the comment'. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it does not provide details on how to obtain these UUIDs.

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: 'Retrieve a specific comment for a work item.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like list_work_item_comments (which lists) and create/update/delete comment tools. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name and description imply it for retrieving a single comment by IDs, but there is no mention of list_work_item_comments as the alternative for fetching multiple comments. Usage is implied, not explicitly stated.

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