get_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: what fields video vs image vs text comments carry (rect, frame, said, quote), and how to interpret them, which goes beyond annotations.

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?

One very dense run-on sentence cramming comment-payload syntax into a tool description. Poorly front-loaded and hard to parse; the comment-content details would better belong in an output description.

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?

Read-only, schema is fully described, but there is no output schema, so the description attempts to convey the return shape (frame, said, quote). It partially covers this but in a cramped way and omits pagination or empty-result behavior.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description's mention of 'pass library, not session' adds a small routing nuance but mostly restates the file/status/enum semantics the schema provides.

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?

Dense description conveys that it retrieves review comments, but it's buried under extensive schema-like detail about comment payloads. It doesn't cleanly state verb+resource up front, and doesn't distinguish from the sibling reply_comment.

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?

It hints at usage ('pass library, not session', 'read it to see what the comment means', 'Default: open comments'), implying a retrieval context. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus alternatives, and no exclusions.

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