run_indiehackers_posts_comments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does useful work: it discloses threaded structure ("depth and parent id"), returned fields, and a cost signal ("1 point per returned record"). It omits ordering and pagination behavior, but the core read-only listing behavior is clear.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It delivers purpose, threading context, returned fields, and cost in one compact statement.

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 read-only listing tool with a fully documented schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the resource, threading structure, return fields, and cost. A minor gap is the lack of explicit ordering or pagination notes, though start_page and max_items are covered by the schema.

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 100%, so the schema already defines post, max_items, and start_page, including the 250-item cap and 50-comments-per-page behavior. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "List the comments of one Indie Hackers post." The resource scope clearly separates it from run_indiehackers_posts and the search sibling, though the description does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 that this tool is for retrieving comments on a single post, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to other Indie Hackers tools such as run_indiehackers_posts or run_indiehackers_posts_search.

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