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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns comment data (text, username, timestamp, like count), which is useful. However, it lacks critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or pagination behavior for large comment sets. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key return values. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose and return fields, which helps, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, performance) and detailed usage guidance. For a simple read tool with full schema coverage, it meets the minimum viable threshold but doesn't fully compensate for missing structured data.

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% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters (media_id and limit with constraints). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples for media_id or context for the limit default. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'comments on an Instagram post', specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_comment' or 'post_comment' by focusing on retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'get_mentions' or 'get_conversation_messages' beyond the Instagram post context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare to siblings like 'get_mentions' for comment retrieval in different contexts, or specify scenarios where this tool is preferred. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly defined.

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