comment_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It thoroughly details the exact contents of the returned packet (comment, layout block, screen definition, journey states, transitions, validation findings), giving the agent a clear behavioral contract. It implies a read-only operation for gathering context, though it doesn't explicitly state side-effect absence.

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 that front-loads the key purpose ('The full work packet for one reviewer comment') and then itemizes contents in a structured list. It is efficient and free of fluff, though slightly dense due to the enumeration length.

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 has no output schema, so the description fully enumerates the return payload (comment, layout block, screen definition, journey states, transitions, validation findings), leaving no ambiguity about what the agent will receive. It also ties the usage into the resolution workflow, making it complete for a complex context-gathering tool.

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 only parameter 'id' has complete schema coverage with the description 'Comment id from comments_list'. The tool description adds no param-specific semantics beyond this, so the baseline of 3 applies for high schema coverage.

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 tool returns 'the full work packet for one reviewer comment' and enumerates its contents with specific resources (comment, layout block, screen definition, journey states, validation findings). It distinguishes itself from siblings like comment_resolve and comments_list by positioning itself as the detailed context provider before resolution.

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 explicitly says 'Use it to address the comment precisely, then call comment_resolve,' which gives a clear directive on when to use the tool relative to comment_resolve. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the workflow context is unambiguous.

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