get_comments_by_id_replies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read behavior is covered. The description adds useful runtime behavior not in the annotations: default pagination limits, endpoint-varying maximums, and that excessive limits are clamped rather than rejected.

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 essential one-liner before the endpoint and args. The pagination note is slightly verbose but provides genuinely useful semantics rather than filler.

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 read-only retrieval tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the main call semantics and pagination nuances. The only notable gap is that 'extended' is left too vague: it does not enumerate the possible extended fields or value formats.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining all four parameters: id is the comment id/slug, extended adds response information, and page/limit, including clamping behavior, are described. The extended explanation is terse, but it is more than the bare schema 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 opens with 'Get replies for a comment', a specific verb plus resource, and the endpoint GET /comments/{id}/replies confirms exactly what is retrieved. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools such as get_comments_by_id and create_comments_by_id_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 description clearly signals this is the read operation for comment replies, and the endpoint path reinforces when it applies: given a comment id, retrieve its replies. It does not list alternatives or exclusions, but for a straightforward GET the intended context is explicit.

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