Search comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by disclosing the shape of each match (thread, [cN] number, score), which reveals results are ranked, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering rules, or cost/limits.

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?

Two tight sentences with the search scope front-loaded and the return shape second; every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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?

For a three-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers scope, matching semantics, and return contents, which is close to sufficient. Only minor gaps remain, such as ordering of scored matches and whether limit truncates silently.

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 100%, so limit, query and thread are all documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description restates the AND-matching semantics of query and the single-thread option without adding format, syntax, or ranking-weight details 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?

States a specific verb+resource (finds comments) plus the scope of the search (all exported threads, or one) and the return payload (thread, [cN] number, score). It is distinguishable from get_comment by its cross-thread search scope, but it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

The phrase 'across every exported thread (or one thread)' and the thread parameter hint at when to narrow the search, implying usage rather than stating it. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named, so the agent must infer the routing.

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