Get Comments

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a safe, non-mutating operation, so the description does not need to over-explain. It adds context by stating it 'lists all comments' and returns cell addresses and text, which helps understand the output. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with the core action stated in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are minimal and efficient, containing no filler. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simplicity of the tool and the readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the essentials: what it does, how to specify scope, and what it returns. It does not mention pagination or edge cases, but for a list operation with JSON output, this is sufficient. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the description's mention of the return structure.

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 0%, leaving parameters undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by explaining each parameter: 'workbook: Workbook name or path (None = active workbook)' and 'sheet: Worksheet name (None = active sheet)'. This adds actionable meaning, clarifying defaults and usage, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List all comments on a worksheet.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_comment and delete_comment by focusing on the read-only listing operation. It also specifies the return format (JSON with cell address and text), 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?

While the description does not explicitly state 'use this when you need to see comments', the clear phrasing and the presence of sibling add/delete comment tools implicitly provide that context. It also explains that workbook and sheet are optional with active defaults (None = active), which guides usage. No exclusions are needed given the simple read operation.

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