Read comments

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe, non-mutating operation, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds the useful detail that results include author and timestamp, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or the effect of the limit parameter.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with a concise usage cue, so every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple read tool with a readOnlyHint annotation and a schema that documents most parameters, the description covers the essential return contents and use case. It does not describe pagination or output shape beyond author and timestamp, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Input schema coverage is 67%, with post_id lacking a schema description. The description only indirectly references post_id via 'on a post' and adds no meaning for page or limit beyond what the schema already states. With partial schema coverage, the description should compensate more than it does.

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 title 'Read comments' and description 'Comments on a post, with who wrote each one and when' clearly identify the resource and the read action. It also distinguishes itself from sibling write tools like reply_to_comment, hide_comment, and delete_comment by framing it as the precursor to replying or moderating.

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 phrase 'Use this before replying or moderating' gives explicit context for when to call this tool. It does not name specific alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is clear enough for an agent to select it over the mutating comment tools.

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