get_entity_comment

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read; the description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond that. It says nothing about permissions needed, error behavior when the comment/entity does not exist, or what the expand parameter changes in the response.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup, though it is arguably too terse given the documentation gaps elsewhere.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the essential what. However, it omits the existence of the expand option's effect and leaves two required identifiers undocumented, which is a gap for a tool with 3 required parameters.

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 only 50%: entityId and commentId have no descriptions anywhere, and the description does not compensate. The one concrete hint it gives ('project, portfolio or goal') merely restates the entityType enum already present in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), a specific cardinality ('one comment'), and the scope ('project, portfolio or goal'). This implicitly distinguishes it from the plural sibling get_entity_comments, though it never names that alternative explicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this single-comment fetch versus get_entity_comments, get_issue_comment, or the entity/issue variants. The agent must infer the use case from the singular 'one comment' phrasing alone.

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