Blog post comments

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds structural context about threaded comments and writer replies, but does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or edge-case behavior.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the core action and following with a concise usage note. Every sentence earns its place, and there is 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 the simplicity of the tool (two parameters), the rich annotations, the 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient purpose and usage context. Neither return values nor parameter details need repeating here.

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%, so both parameters (limit, post_id) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Read'), a precise resource ('comments of a blog post'), and the return structure ('as threads, with the store writer's answers as replies'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mk_blog_posts, which deals with posts rather than their 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?

It offers a clear usage context: 'Useful as a support FAQ: many posts hold readers' product questions answered by MasterKala.' However, it does not name alternative tools or specify when not to use this one, so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not/alternatives rubric.

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