get_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get comments for a record' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, pagination behavior (beyond what's hinted in parameters), or the return format (e.g., list of comment objects). For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 at four words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get comments'), making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's purpose without redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like pagination, authentication, or error handling, nor does it provide usage context. While the schema covers parameters well, the lack of output schema means the description should ideally hint at return values, but it doesn't, leaving users with insufficient information for effective use.

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 description adds no meaning beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'app ID', 'record ID', 'sort order'), the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't explain parameter interactions, defaults beyond 'order', or constraints like the 'limit' max of 10, but the schema adequately covers these details.

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 'Get comments for a record' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('comments for a record'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'Get' entails (e.g., listing, retrieving, fetching) and doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_record' or 'get_all_records' in terms of scope or granularity, leaving it somewhat vague.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an app and record ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_record' (which might include comments) or 'add_comment'. Without such context, users must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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