get_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' comments (implying read-only), but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with invalid IDs. For a tool with one required parameter and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While under-specified, every word contributes directly to the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools including 'get_comments_list', the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameter's format, differentiate from alternatives, describe return values, or address behavioral aspects like error handling. The minimal description is inadequate for this context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but doesn't. The single parameter 'items' (an array of objects with 'id') is undocumented in both schema and description. The description mentions 'by ID' which hints at the parameter purpose but doesn't explain format, constraints, or that multiple IDs can be provided via an array.

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 states the action ('Get') and resource ('comments from Todoist'), but is vague about scope and mechanism. It doesn't specify whether this retrieves comments for single or multiple items, or how it differs from sibling 'get_comments_list' which suggests a list operation. The purpose is understandable but lacks differentiation from alternatives.

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 'get_comments_list' or 'get_tasks' (which might include comments). The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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