get_comment_thread

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

The description states it 'reads' a thread, implying a non-mutating operation, and describes what is returned (author, position). No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention permissions, edge cases, or limitations, but the read-only nature is clear.

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 concise sentences. The first states the action and expected result; the second provides sourcing guidance. No filler 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 description covers the core functionality and return content (author, position). With no output schema, it gives enough context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose. It omits details like pagination or failure modes, but for a simple single-thread read, it is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameter descriptions are rich: comment_id includes 'from get_reader_feed... Without the c- prefix' and include_replies has a clear default and purpose. The description text itself doesn't add parameter details, but the schema already provides full semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Read' and clearly identifies the resource as 'one Note or comment together with the replies beneath it', explicitly mentioning author and position. It also tells the user where to get the id (get_reader_feed or get_profile_feed), which distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 says 'Take the id from get_reader_feed or get_profile_feed', providing a clear context for when this tool is used. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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