Get Comment Details

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

The read-only and non-destructive behavior is already covered by annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that the response includes full HTML content, author, timestamp, and reactions, which is especially valuable given there is no output schema. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but that is not critical for a simple read operation.

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 at under 30 words and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence, 'Use this to read a specific comment in detail,' is mostly redundant with the first but does add a usage directive, introducing only minor repetition.

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 single-comment read tool with read-only annotations, the description adequately conveys purpose, return content, and usage intent. The absence of an output schema makes the return-field enumeration especially helpful. A small gap is the lack of explicit routing to get_card_comments for listing, but the schema already instructs how to obtain comment IDs.

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%, and each parameter is thoroughly documented with examples and sources (e.g., comment_id points to get_card_comments). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, 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 clearly identifies the action ('Get detailed information') and the resource ('a specific comment'), enumerating key output fields (full HTML content, author, timestamp, reactions). It does not explicitly name the sibling list tool gereal_comments, but the phrasing 'specific comment' and 'in detail' distinguishes it from a list operation.

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?

Provides a clear usage directive: 'Use this to read a specific comment in detail.' This establishes when the tool is appropriate, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios, such as pointing to get_card_comments for listing all comments.

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