tp_get_note_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It simply states the action without mentioning ordering, filtering, auth requirements, or whether the athlete parameter affects results. As a read tool, it lacks context about what the agent should expect in terms of access or data shape.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded: 'Get all comments on a calendar note.' It includes the verb, resource, and scope with no wasted words or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with only two well-described parameters and no output schema. However, the description does not specify the return format, ordering, or potential pagination limits. It adequately conveys the basic function but leaves the agent without important details about the response structure.

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 schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (note_id and athlete), including a clear explanation for athlete. The description itself adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the exact resource: 'all comments on a calendar note.' This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tp_get_workout_comments (comments on workouts) and tp_add_note_comment (adding comments).

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 implies the tool is for retrieving comments on calendar notes, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions, such as coach-only access for the athlete parameter (though that is in the schema). It provides clear context but no comparative guidance.

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