Get a comment's context

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and does add real domain context: the returned fields and the semantics of mock.recipe and mock.replay for comments written under a Maple Mock. It still omits error/not-found behavior, but the added payload detail goes meaningfully beyond the safety hint.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary outcome and followed by a single clarifying note about mock-authored comments. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence is somewhat niche.

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 takes on the job of describing the return payload, and it does list the key components (anchor, viewport, markup, replay link). It is adequate for a read-only two-parameter tool, with only minor gaps around error handling and return shape detail.

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% and both parameters (id, branch) are documented in the schema, including the useful 'not a pull request number' clarification. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 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?

Specific verb (return) plus a concrete resource (one comment's context) and an enumeration of what that context contains: anchor, viewport, surrounding markup, replay link. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_comments (bulk) and resolve_comment (mutation).

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 phrase 'everything needed to act on one comment' implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. An agent must infer that this is the follow-up to list_comments rather than being told.

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