word_get_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds extra behavioral context: it retrieves comments with metadata and thread context, and returns a dictionary. No contradiction; it enhances understanding beyond the safety profile.

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, structured with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, and every sentence is necessary. No filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description hints at return structure (dictionary with comment list/count and thread groups). For a read-only tool with good schema coverage and annotations, it is fairly complete, though output details could be more specific.

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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining parameters in the 'Args' block, including defaults (e.g., 'flat (default) or threaded') and the relationship between filter and author. This adds value beyond schema enums.

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 'Extract comments from a Word document with metadata and thread context', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like word_delete_comment and word_reply_comment by focusing on reading rather than modifying 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While siblings are different operations (delete, reply, etc.), the description does not state when not to use or provide context for selection.

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