get_comments

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 'get comments' without disclosing any behavioral traits like side effects, rate limits, auth requirements, or pagination behavior beyond parameter names. For a read tool, minimal transparency.

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 a single short sentence, very concise. However, it is so brief that it omits important context. Every word earns its place, but the description could be more informative without being verbose.

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?

No output schema, so description should ideally explain return values or behavior. It does not mention pagination defaults, ordering, or what happens when no comments exist. The tool has 5 parameters with pagination options, but the description ignores these complexities.

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 each parameter is already described in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'comments for an application element', and specifies the system ELMA365. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_comment (which adds) and other retrieval tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies usage for retrieving comments but does not mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools. Sibling tool add_comment exists, but no differentiation is made.

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