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 discloses meaningful behavioral traits: the chronological ordering, the exact message categories included, and the required OAuth scope (comments:read). It does not describe potential error cases or pagination, but for a simple read operation it provides solid transparency.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the scope requirement is stated in the second sentence. Every word contributes useful information.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is mostly complete: it defines the resource, ordering, message kinds, and authentication scope. It does not explain response shape or failure behavior, but those are less critical for a straightforward list operation.

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 schema already documents the single parameter 'key' with a clear example format (OPS-42). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter detail. It adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, matching the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it retrieves a task's conversation, explicitly listing the message types (user, agent, system) and ordering (oldest first). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add-comment or get-task.

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 its use case—reading a task's conversation—and mentions the required scope, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the purpose, but exclusions and alternative routing are absent.

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