get-comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('get comments') without any details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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, clear sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. There is no wasted verbiage or structural issues.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It does not explain what the return value includes (e.g., comment structure, metadata) or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with one parameter but no structured output information, more context is needed to ensure the agent can invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'noteId' clearly documented as '記事ID' (article ID). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond this, such as format examples or validation rules. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already provides adequate parameter information.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '記事へのコメント一覧を取得する' translates to 'Get a list of comments on an article.' This specifies the verb ('get') and resource ('comments on an article'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-note' or 'post-comment,' which is why it scores a 4 instead of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid noteId, or compare it to related tools like 'get-note' (which might include comments) or 'post-comment' (for adding comments). Without any usage context, the agent must infer this from the tool name and parameters alone.

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