get_document_comments

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail — that replies are nested in the result — but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether resolved comments are included in this list.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though slightly more detail could be folded in without bloat.

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-only, single-param tool with no output schema, this is close to sufficient, but an agent still lacks ordering, pagination, and empty-result behavior. Those are the main gaps.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents documentId and the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning, such as the expected ID format or where to obtain one.

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 concrete verb+resource: returns the comment list for a document. It also discloses the reply-nesting shape. No sibling is named, but the document scope cleanly separates it from get_issue_comments and get_pull_request_comments.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives such as get_document or the *_comments siblings, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., needing read access or a valid documentId). Usage is only inferable from the name.

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