get_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no indication of ordering, paging behavior, empty-result behavior, or whether system/generated comments are included. With annotations carrying the burden, this is a thin but non-contradictory disclosure.

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?

It is a single short fragment with zero waste and the key resource is front-loaded. The terseness is under-specification rather than bloat, so it is efficient but too sparse to be genuinely well-structured.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. But for a paged list tool with an undocumented limit parameter and no usage context, the description leaves real gaps an agent would need to guess at.

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 0%, so both parameters rely on the description, yet it says nothing about them. "of a work item" loosely ties to work_item_id, but the "top" parameter (default 50) is completely unexplained — no hint that it caps the number of comments returned.

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?

"Comments (Discussion) of a work item" identifies the resource and clarifies that these are discussion comments attached to a work item, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_work_item or get_work_item_history. However, it supplies no verb and never states that it retrieves/lists them, so the purpose is only implied by the tool name rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to call this when you need the discussion thread on a work item, and no alternative is named (e.g. get_work_item_history for field change history). The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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