get_user_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only implies a read operation through 'Get' but says nothing about pagination, sorting behavior, time-filtering, authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but for a five-parameter tool it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks the structural detail needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and five undocumented parameters, the description is wholly inadequate. It states only the basic purpose and omits all operational details an agent would need to call the tool correctly.

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 five parameters and 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the meaning or effects of username, sort, after, limit, or time_filter, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance beyond the schema 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a user's comment history.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_user_posts and get_comment_thread by specifying comments belonging to a user. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or clarify whether it includes only top-level comments or replies.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus get_user_posts, get_comment_thread, or search_posts. The implied usage is simply to retrieve a user's comment history, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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