get_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'get comments' which merely restates the tool's name and does not mention pagination, default fields, return format, or any side effects. For a read operation, this is a minimal disclosure gap.

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 concise sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action and resource.

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 the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description should compensate by explaining what the tool returns, how pagination works, and the default behavior. It does none of this, making the context incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the schema itself defines the parameters well. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Получить комментарии к задаче' (Get comments to a task) clearly states the action (get) and the resource (comments for a specific task). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_task (which retrieves task details) and add_comment (which creates a 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 implies usage: fetch comments when you need them for a given task. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_task or add_comment, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the required taskId.

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