drive_get_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It correctly indicates a read operation ('get') but does not mention any behavioral traits such as permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the comment does not exist. It is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that includes the verb, resource, and identifying method. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or ambiguity.

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 simplicity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description conveys the core functionality. However, it does not specify what is returned (e.g., the full comment object) or any context about when a comment might be available, making it minimally complete.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both 'fileId' and 'commentId'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'by ID', which is already implied by the parameter names and schema. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly specifies the action ('get'), resource ('comment'), scope ('specific'), and source ('Google Drive file'), with the retrieval key ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'drive_get_comments' (list) and 'drive_add_comment' (create).

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 implies usage when a specific comment ID is known but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., drive_get_comments for listing all comments). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite guidance is provided, but the tool is straightforward.

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