vk_wall_get_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the operation is a read (returns data), but does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, error responses, or what happens if the comment does not exist.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. However, no structural organization (bullet points, examples). Appropriate length given simplicity, but could include brief parameter guidance without becoming verbose.

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?

No output schema, and the description omits what the returned comment contains (e.g., author, date, text). For a simple retrieval tool, the agent has no information about the response format, making it harder to plan subsequent steps.

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?

Input schema has 4 parameters with 50% description coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema: it does not explain the 'extended' or 'fields' parameters, nor how 'owner_id' negative values work (already in schema). The description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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?

Description clearly states it returns a comment on a post, specifying both user wall and community wall. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('comment on a post'), differentiating from sibling tools like vk_wall_get_comments (plural) and vk_wall_get.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vk_wall_get_comments for multiple comments or vk_wall_get for posts. Usage context is implied by the description, but no exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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