Get Article Comments

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

The description adds the return format ('Array of comments with user info, text, likes, replies'), which is not in the annotations. However, behavioral traits like auth needs or rate limits are absent, and the annotations already indicate safe read-only behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The Args list is somewhat redundant with the schema but not overly verbose. Each sentence contributes value.

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 lack of an output schema, the description provides return value structure, which is helpful. It covers all parameters and their constraints. However, it omits pagination behavior details and error handling, but is sufficient for a simple read operation.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description merely restates parameter names and defaults. It adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 an article' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like neptime_get_video_comments, relying on the tool name for differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to fetch video comments or other comment-related tools). The description lacks explicit context or exclusion criteria.

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