moltbook_get_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('Tree-structured comments with replies nested') which is helpful, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with invalid parameters. The description doesn't contradict annotations (since none exist), but leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly structured and concise. It starts with the core purpose, then provides a clean Args section with bullet-point explanations, and ends with Returns information. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or redundant information.

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 read operation with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining parameters and return format. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally address more behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or whether this is a safe read operation. The parameter explanations are excellent, but other contextual gaps remain.

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 description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains what 'post_id' represents (UUID), enumerates the valid values for 'sort' ('best', 'new', or 'old'), specifies the range for 'limit' (1-100), and clarifies that 'cursor' is for pagination from previous responses. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 resource ('threaded comments on a post'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'moltbook_get_post' by focusing specifically on comments rather than post content. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'moltbook_thread_diff' which might also involve comment threads.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear this retrieves comments, there's no mention of when to use it versus 'moltbook_get_post' (which might include comments) or 'moltbook_thread_diff' (which might compare comment threads). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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