get_comment

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by using 'Get' (a read operation). The description adds value by specifying that it retrieves 'its full thread of replies,' providing context beyond annotations about the scope of data returned. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, which would enhance transparency further.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and understand the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, read-only per annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the scope ('full thread of replies'), which adds useful context. However, it could improve by mentioning sibling differentiation or usage scenarios to fully guide the agent in a rich toolset environment.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (document_id and comment_id). The description doesn't add extra semantic details beyond the schema, such as format examples or interdependencies. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents the parameters without needing description supplementation.

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 states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific comment with its full thread of replies'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_comments' (which likely lists multiple comments without threads) or 'read_google_doc' (which might retrieve document content), leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like needing a single comment's details versus bulk listing, or prerequisites such as having specific IDs, which could help the agent choose appropriately among siblings like 'list_comments' or 'get_document_info'.

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