teamstorm_get_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the behavioral detail of chronological ordering and 'all comments' implying no filtering, but it does not mention pagination, limits, or error behavior. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence with no filler. Every word carries meaning, and the core action (retrieve all comments) is front-loaded, with the ordering detail appended efficiently.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, so the description need not explain return values. However, with zero schema coverage, the description should more explicitly clarify what task_key is and when to use this tool, leaving some reliance on naming conventions and schema. It is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only indirectly references the parameter with 'for a TeamStorm task.' It implies task_key identifies the task but does not explicitly define the parameter's meaning, format, or required nature. For a single simple string key, this is sufficient but leaves room for clearer documentation.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a precise resource ('all comments for a TeamStorm task'), and a differentiating qualifier ('in chronological order'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_comment (write) and get_attachments (different resource), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage through its read-only phrasing and the sibling set (e.g., add_comment for writing), but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_task_context or get_attachments. The guidance is only implied, not articulated.

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