get_comments

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that the tool handles native DOCX comments and returns empty for Markdown, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, if it requires specific permissions, or any side effects. For a listing operation, the read-only nature is implied but not explicitly declared.

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 front-loaded: it states the core purpose immediately, then provides additional detail on comment fields and the Markdown caveat in just two short paragraphs. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

While an output schema exists (so return structure is covered), the description fails to clarify the essential parameters, which are also undocumented. Additionally, there is no guidance on how to identify the document (path vs. hash) or any prerequisites. For a tool with two parameters and no annotation support, this is insufficient for confident invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, meaning the parameters 'path' and 'doc_hash' are not explained in the schema. The description also does not explain these parameters at all. It lacks any semantics regarding what 'path' refers to (file path? document ID?) or how 'doc_hash' is used. This is a critical gap for agent correctness.

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 operation ('List comments') and the resource ('anchored in the document'), with a precise qualifier ('native DOCX comments'). It distinguishes this from other tools by noting Markdown returns an empty list, which prevents ambiguity with sibling tools like get_changes or get_outline.

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 explicit 'when to use' guidance or comparison with alternatives. It only mentions that Markdown yields an empty list, which is more of a behavioral caveat than usage direction. Without mention of siblings like get_changes or read_document, an agent may not know when this tool is appropriate.

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