Read comment context

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

Even with readOnlyHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral caveats: evidence may be unavailable, do not invent a screenshot or successful location, and do not publish a new site or resolve the discussion automatically. These go beyond the annotation and shape agent expectations.

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?

Three dense sentences front-load the purpose, then add caveats and workflow guardrails. There is no filler or repetition; every clause carries useful 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?

With no output schema, the description enumerates the likely return contents and key caveats, which is sufficient for a read-only context fetch. It could clarify how share_token or tenant_id affect results, but the schema partially covers those.

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 descriptions already cover slug, tenant_id, and share_token (75% coverage), so the baseline applies. The description adds only a workflow reference to 'same slug' and does not clarify thread_id, which remains undocumented in the schema. Parameter-level meaning is not meaningfully extended.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing ('Get the exact original version, file, typed anchor...') and enumerates the precise data the tool returns. This set of fields distinguishes it from sibling tools like artifact_site_comment_read and artifact_site_comments_list.

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 provides clear operational context: read the original version, inspect the latest editable version separately, default to same-slug edits with expected_version and operation_key, and avoid publishing or auto-resolving. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but it gives enough guidance to prevent common misuse.

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