get_record_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it fetches comments, performs internal pagination when limit is unspecified to get all items, and recommends using limit for large datasets to manage performance. This covers important operational aspects like data handling and performance considerations, though it doesn't detail error conditions or response format.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides crucial behavioral guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers purpose and key behavior (pagination, limit usage), but lacks details on output format, error handling, or authentication needs. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful for a read operation, though it's minimally viable.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior for 'limit' (internal pagination for all items when unspecified) and providing an example ('例: 10'), but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'kintoneレコードのコメントを取得します' (get comments for a kintone record). It specifies the verb (取得/get) and resource (コメント/comments), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_record' or 'add_record_comment'. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation for a perfect score.

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 some usage guidance by recommending to use 'limit' for large datasets to avoid fetching all comments, which implies when to use this parameter. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_record' (which might include comments) or 'add_record_comment', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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