incident_incident_comments__get_incident_comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restatement. The description adds the precondition about an existing parent incident, but says nothing about failure behavior (e.g. a missing or mismatched comment) or that a single object is returned rather than a collection.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, with the precondition separated out. But the endpoint path largely repeats the annotations title ('GET /v2/incidents/{incidentUuid}/comments/{commentUuid}') and the phrase 'Get an Incident Comment' restates the tool name, so only the precondition line does new work.

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?

For a simple read-only single-resource fetch with a fully documented 3-parameter schema and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the definition is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is error and return-shape context, which is minor here since no output schema exists but the operation is a straightforward single-resource GET.

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 100%, including the optional 'fields' projection parameter, so the schema carries parameter meaning and the baseline of 3 applies. The description's only added constraint is the precondition on incident_uuid, and it spells that parameter as 'incident_uuid' while the schema uses 'incidentUuid', a minor naming inconsistency.

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 names a specific verb (Get) and resource (Incident Comment) and pins it to the endpoint GET /v2/incidents/{incidentUuid}/comments/{commentUuid}, so it is clearly the single-item fetch. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling incident_incident_comments__list_incident_comments, leaving the singular/plural distinction to the name alone.

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?

There is an explicit precondition that incidentUuid must reference an existing incident, which is real usage context. However, nothing states when to prefer this over list_incident_comments or what to do if the caller only has an incident and needs the comment list, and there is no mention of how commentUuid is obtained.

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