vk_photos_get_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Access level: read' implying no side effects, but fails to disclose pagination, sorting behavior, error responses, or what happens with invalid IDs. The description is insufficient for understanding the tool's 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 very short (2 sentences), but the second sentence is redundant, repeating the tool name and VK method. It could be more concise by removing the repetition and front-loading critical usage guidance.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely lacking. It does not cover return format, error handling, pagination limits, or use cases. The tool's full context is not provided, making it incomplete for effective use.

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 60% (6 of 10 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. It does not clarify ambiguous parameters like 'access_key' or 'extended', nor explain the 'asc'/'desc' sort values adequately.

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 it returns a list of comments on a photo, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like vk_photos_get_all_comments or vk_wall_get_comments, which reduces clarity for selection.

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 tool versus alternatives. It only mentions 'Access level: read' but lacks context on prerequisites, when not to use, or comparison with other comment-retrieving tools.

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