backlog_get_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states that it retrieves comments, with no mention of read-only behavior, pagination, ordering, or authentication needs. For a read operation, minimal behavioral info is disclosed.

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, terse sentence that directly states the tool's function. No extraneous words, perfectly sized for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. However, it lacks mention of potential pagination or ordering of comments, which might be relevant for an agent to know. Still, for a basic list retrieval, it is adequate.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single required parameter 'issueKey'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter description. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves a list of comments for a specific issue, using the verb '取得' (retrieve) and the resource 'コメント一覧' (comment list). It differentiates from sibling tools like backlog_get_issue (issue details) and backlog_add_comment (add comment).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, it does not state that the tool is only for reading comments or when not to use it (e.g., for adding comments). Usage is implied but not articulated.

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