teamstorm_get_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that comments are returned in chronological order, but it does not disclose whether results are paginated or how comment ordering is exactly defined. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no filler or redundant content. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, so the return value structure is already documented. The description covers scope and ordering, annotations cover safety, and the parameter is minimal; nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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. It does map task_key implicitly to 'a TeamStorm task', but it does not clarify the expected format of task_key (e.g., ID vs. human-readable key) or provide an example. The meaning is partially recoverable from context, but not fully specified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve'), names the exact resource ('all comments for a TeamStorm task'), and adds ordering ('chronological order'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like teamstorm_get_attachments, teamstorm_get_links, and teamstorm_add_comment.

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 description clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs the comment history for a TeamStorm task. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as using teamstorm_add_comment when the goal is to create a comment rather than read existing ones.

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