vk_photos_get_all_comments

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

The description mentions sorting order but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, authentication, or side effects. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the burden; it partially fulfills it by stating the read access level.

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 short but includes redundant statements like 'Tool name: vk_photos_get_all_comments' and 'Section: photos'. While not verbose, some sentences do not earn their place relative to the core function.

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 has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary operation but omits details about pagination parameters (offset, count) and return structure. It is minimally complete for a read-only tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal clarification (e.g., 'on a specific photo album or all albums' for album_id) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond 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?

The description clearly states that the tool returns a list of comments on a specific photo album or all albums, sorted reverse chronologically. It distinguishes from the sibling 'vk_photos_get_comments' (which likely operates on a single photo) by specifying album-level scope, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vk_photos_get_comments. The description includes metadata like 'VK API method' and 'Access level: read' but does not offer context for selection.

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