get_comments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns all comments in a thread, which essentially restates the purpose. It does not mention ordering, pagination, error handling, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only beyond the 'Get' verb.

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, grammatically complete sentence that is direct and front-loaded. No words are wasted, and it effectively communicates the core function.

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?

For a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits any information about the return shape (e.g., an array of comment objects), potential errors, or how this differs from fetching thread metadata, which would be valuable given the rich set of sibling comment-related tools.

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 100% for the single parameter threadId, which is already described as 'Thread ID'. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning or usage details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Get all comments in a thread' uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies both the resource ('comments') and the scope ('in a thread'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_comment_thread and list_comment_threads by indicating a collection operation on comments within a single thread.

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 implies the use case (retrieve all comments for a given thread) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_comment_thread or list_comment_threads. There is no mention of when not to use it or of any prerequisites.

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