bb_get_pull_request_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get a single comment' with no information about error handling, response shape, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a read tool, this is minimal but lacks non-obvious behavioral context.

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 sentence with no filler words. It is immediately front-loaded with the core action and resource, earning every word's place.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers all parameters, but the description does not explain return values (no output schema exists) or how it differs from the plural variant. It is adequate for a obvious get-by-ID operation but leaves some gaps in context.

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 100% (every parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but it is not required to compensate since the schema is fully descriptive.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single comment by ID from a pull request'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like bb_get_pull_request_comments (plural) and bb_get_comment_thread. It fully states what the tool does with no ambiguity.

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 wording ('by ID') but there is no explicit mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives like the plural list tool. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, so the agent must infer context from sibling names.

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