Freelo Get All Comments

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by disclosing that the result spans multiple entity types (tasks, documents, files, links), which helps set expectations. It does not add detail on pagination behavior, result limits, or defaults, but this is modest given the read-only nature and existing annotations. 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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the verb, resource, and capabilities ('Fetches all comments across projects with filtering and sorting'), and the second sentence earns its place by clarifying which entity types are included. Every word contributes.

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?

The tool has a full output schema, complete parameter documentation, and annotations covering its read-only, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to explain return values or safety. It adequately specifies the resource, scope, and entity coverage. The only notable omission is guidance on when to prefer this aggregate tool over search or focused per-entity tools, which overlaps with the usage_guidelines gap.

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 each parameter (p, type, order, order_by, projects_ids) is already documented in the schema. The description's 'filtering and sorting' phrase is a high-level summary that maps to the filters object but adds no concrete detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetches') and a specific resource ('all comments across projects'), and the second sentence clarifies the entity scope ('discussions on tasks, documents, files, and links'). This is clear and distinct enough from sibling tools like freelo_get_all_tasks or freelo_get_all_projects, though it does not explicitly name any sibling to rule out.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Fetches all comments across projects' suggests using it when aggregating comments globally, and the filtering/sorting note hints at its capabilities. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as freelo_search_elasticsearch or per-entity tools.

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