get_bar_comments

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds the failure condition when bar_id is not found, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as pagination or sorting.

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 extremely concise, consisting of three short sentences. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by usage guidelines and a failure condition. No unnecessary information.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and when it fails. It is complete and leaves no major 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?

The input schema already fully describes the parameter (bar_id as required string), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema, only mentioning bar_id in the failure condition.

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 'Get comments on a bar.' with a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool get_roadmap_comments by stating 'For roadmap-level comments, use get_roadmap_comments instead.'

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 example queries ('Show comments', 'What's the feedback on this bar?') and explicitly states when not to use this tool (for roadmap-level comments). It also specifies a failure condition ('FAILS WHEN: bar_id not found').

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