Comment Field Settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' implies a safe read, but the description never confirms read-only behavior, required permissions, or what happens for bundles without comment fields. It adds essentially nothing beyond the title.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps noted in other dimensions.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and this is a simple read tool. Still, for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the description omits the field_name parameter and any usage context, leaving it only minimally complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It names entity_type and bundle but gives no format or accepted values, and it ignores field_name entirely (including its 'comment' default), leaving a third of the inputs undocumented in both schema and description.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get comment field settings') and scopes it to entity type/bundle, so the agent knows exactly what is retrieved. It does not, however, distinguish this from close siblings like comment_field_configure or field_config_get, leaving the reader to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus comment_field_configure (which likely mutates the same settings) or the generic field_config_get. No prerequisites or context are stated, so the agent must guess based on the name alone.

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