get_v1_media_comments_by_id

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

The description includes '[GET' indicating HTTP method, but no annotations exist. It does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or required permissions. For a tool lacking annotations, this is insufficient.

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 brief but not concise in a useful way. It is under-specified, using a single line that adds no value beyond the tool name. Every sentence should earn its place; this one does not.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should compensate but fails. The tool's purpose, input semantics, and output are opaque. A complete description would explain that it retrieves comments for a media post with pagination.

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%, and the description provides no parameter explanations. The schema defines 'id', 'count', and 'cursor', but their roles (e.g., pagination, media vs comment ID) are not clarified, leaving the agent to guess.

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 only states 'Media Comments By Id' which is a tautology of the tool name. It does not clarify whether 'id' refers to a media ID or comment ID, nor does it specify the action (e.g., list comments for a media item). Compared to siblings like get_v1_media_by_id, this lacks specificity.

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 such as get_v1_media_by_id (get media details) or get_v1_media_comment_replies_by_id (get replies to a specific comment). The context-dependent choice is unclear.

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