get_ticket_comments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that both public replies and internal notes are included and that results are ordered newest first. It also provides the API endpoint, giving additional context about execution. This goes beyond merely stating 'get comments'.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is concise with no filler or redundant information. Including the API endpoint adds useful context without unnecessary length.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers the core behavior: retrieving a conversation thread with public and internal notes, newest first. It does not mention pagination behavior beyond the schema, but the schema already includes per_page defaults. Overall, the description is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. While the endpoint path '/api/v2/tickets/{id}/comments' implicitly maps 'id' to 'ticket_id', the 'per_page' parameter is completely unexplained, including its default and max values. The description adds minimal insight beyond the raw parameter names.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and resource ('conversation thread of a ticket'), and specifies the contents ('public replies and internal notes') and ordering ('newest first'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_ticket' (likely ticket details) and 'add_ticket_comment' (writes).

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 clear context: use this to retrieve the comment thread for a ticket. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the wording 'Get the conversation thread' implies the appropriate use case. There is no misleading guidance.

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