docs_read_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It communicates a read operation and return fields, but it does not explain the default filtering behavior of include_resolved, pagination, permissions, or explicitly confirm no document modifications occur.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds information—scope, return contents, and use case—without redundancy or filler.

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 two-parameter read tool with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description covers purpose, expected return values, and a use case. Minor gaps remain around filter semantics and explicit differentiation from sibling tools, but the essential information for selection and invocation is present.

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%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds modest value by mentioning 'resolved or deleted' status, which relates to include_resolved, but it does not meaningfully extend beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read all comments on a Google Doc.' It then lists the returned fields (content, author, anchor status, resolved/deleted), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like docs_get or comment-mutation tools.

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 gives a clear intended use case: 'Useful for auditing what comments exist and whether they are properly anchored to text.' This provides context on when to choose the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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