get_post_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that comments withheld by automod are reported separately under automod_hidden_count, and enumerates the per-comment fields (author, text, reaction and reply counts, position). It does not mention sorting or pagination, but the schema covers the limit parameter, and the disclosed details go beyond a generic 'read comments' statement.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the primary purpose, and each sentence adds substantial value: the first defines the action and return contents, the second clarifies a non-obvious behavioral nuance (automod handling). No wasted words.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what is returned. It does so thoroughly by listing the fields for each comment and the automod_hidden_count. Combined with the schema's parameter documentation, this gives a complete picture for a read-only tool with two parameters.

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 has 100% coverage: both 'limit' and 'post_id' have clear descriptions with ranges and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('comments on one of your posts'), clearly stating what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_comment_thread and comment_on_post by focusing on the comments of a specific post, including thread position and automod handling.

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 usage for one's own posts ('on one of your posts') and notes that automod-hidden comments are counted separately, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like get_comment_thread, nor does it provide exclusion criteria, leaving room for ambiguity.

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