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 implies a read operation via 'Get' and says nothing about permissions, pagination, ordering, or output format, adding almost no behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though its terseness contributes to gaps in other dimensions rather than being a structural flaw.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, 50% schema description coverage, and a task_id parameter undocumented in both schema and description, the definition is missing too much for an agent to call it confidently. It identifies the resource but omits pagination, output shape, and parameter semantics.

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 50%: board_name is documented as a configured board name referencing list_boards, while task_id has no description. The tool description adds no parameter meaning, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented task_id parameter.

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 and resource: 'Get comments on a task.' An agent can tell this is a read operation for comments, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling add_comment tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Get' and the resource 'comments,' but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the add_comment sibling as an alternative. The agent must infer the appropriate context.

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