get_comments

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a read operation. The description adds that it lists comments for a page ID, which is consistent. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior even though the schema includes cursor and limit parameters, nor does it mention potential errors or rate limits. This is adequate but not enriched.

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, concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it lacks any additional structure such as examples or notes, but it does not contain any fluff. It earns a 4 because it is efficient but minimally informative.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify what is returned, but it does not. It also fails to explain pagination despite the presence of cursor and limit parameters. Given the complexity of 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not add new semantic meaning beyond restating the resource. According to the rules, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that.

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 'List' with a clear resource 'Docmost comments' and scope 'for a page ID', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_comment or update_comment that perform different actions. The purpose is immediately obvious.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this tool should be used to retrieve comments, while create_comment is for adding new ones. This omission forces the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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