get_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. It only states 'Get comments' but does not disclose behavior such as pagination handling, ordering, error cases, whether replies are included, or whether the operation is read-only. 'Get' implies read-only, but the lack of explicit behavioral context is a gap.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It has no filler, but it could include a bit more context without becoming verbose, such as mentioning pagination or post ID requirement.

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?

While the tool is simple and the schema is self-explanatory, there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not indicate the structure of returned comments or pagination behavior, though the parameter details help. It is adequate for basic invocation but leaves some context uncovered.

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 covers all three parameters with clear descriptions including defaults and bounds for skip and limit. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only clarifying that comments are tied to a specific post. Given schema coverage is 100%, 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 'Get comments from a specific Canny post' uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('comments') and scope ('from a specific Canny post'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_boards, get_posts, and get_users, which focus on other resources.

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 usage is implied by the resource: use this tool when you need comments for a particular post. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives like get_post or search_posts. No prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid postId) are mentioned.

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