get_comments_by_id_item

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds that the response is the attached media item and that extended affects the response, but does not disclose additional behavior such as error conditions or response shape. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the endpoint and a concise Args list. There is no redundant or vague filler; the endpoint line and parameter explanations each add useful context.

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 GET operation with only two parameters, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description provides sufficient information: purpose, endpoint, and parameter meanings. It could go further by explaining what 'media item' encompasses, but the name and endpoint make this reasonably clear.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the Args section in the description is essential. It clarifies id as 'The id/slug of the resource' and extended as 'Extended information to include in the response', adding meaning beyond the bare schema property names. The extended parameter could be more specific, but this is adequate for a simple optional modifier.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the attached media item' plus the exact endpoint GET /comments/{id}/item. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_comments_by_id (the comment itself) and get_comments_by_id_replies (replies).

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 usage context is implied by the description: use this when you need the media item attached to a comment. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as get_comments_by_id or get_notes_by_id_item for analogous attachments.

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