zendesk_get_comments

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns all comments with attachment metadata but not file downloads. However, it does not mention authentication needs, error handling, rate limits, or pagination behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 sentences, no redundant words, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence contributes value.

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 the simple parameter set (only ticket_id) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: scope, inclusion of attachment metadata, and exclusion of file downloads. It does not mention pagination, but 'all' implies no pagination. Sufficient for a straightforward read tool.

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 only parameter ticket_id is described as being for a Zendesk ticket. With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides necessary context, but does not specify constraints like valid ID range or format.

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 it retrieves all comments (public and internal notes) for a Zendesk ticket, and specifies it includes attachment metadata but does not download files. It distinguishes from sibling tools like zendesk_post_comment and zendesk_download_attachment.

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 the tool should be used to get comments for a specific ticket. While it doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives, the sibling list contains no other 'get comments' tool, making its purpose clear. However, it lacks when-not-to-use guidance.

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