get_comments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that documents open in Word are read live, that the entry shape is the same, and that live IDs are comment positions rather than XML IDs. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the name and content make that reasonably 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?

The description is two tight sentences with no filler. The most important content is front-loaded, and the technically important live-mode caveat is placed at the end without bloating the description.

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?

The output schema covers return shape, but with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the description needs to do more. It handles the live behavior well but omits file_path and author semantics and gives no usage context relative to sibling tools.

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 the description must compensate. It adds some meaning around the live parameter by explaining live-id behavior, but it does not explain file_path or how the author filter behaves, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.

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 identifies the resource ('comments') and enumerates what is included: authors, anchored text, threading, and resolved state. It is clear that this is a read operation, but the description itself lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists'; the name 'get_comments' supplies that role.

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 siblings such as comment_report, comment_report_multi, or get_document_info. The live-mode note describes behavior but does not help an agent decide between alternatives.

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