Get Comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds value by specifying the return format (JSON with index, author, text, position) and clarifying the required nature of slide_index, which goes beyond the schema. It does not cover edge cases like empty comment lists or out-of-bounds indices, but these are not critical for a simple read operation.

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 concise and well-structured, with a one-line purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded, allowing an agent to quickly understand the tool without wading through fluff.

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 straightforward read-only tool with two simple parameters, the description covers everything needed: what it does, the arguments (including semantics and required status), and the return structure. Since output schema is absent, the explicit return description is crucial, and no other important information is missing.

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 compensates for the total absence of schema descriptions by explaining both parameters: presentation is a name/path (None = active presentation) and slide_index is a 1-based index that is required. This directly resolves ambiguity in the schema, where slide_index has a default but no documentation, making it clear how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 ('List') and resource ('all comments on a slide'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_comment and delete_comment, and the mention of slide_index clarifies the scope.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to list comments on a specific slide, with the slide_index required and presentation optional. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling list (add_comment, delete_comment) makes the read-only use case obvious, so the lack of explicit when-not guidance is a minor gap.

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