list_commentsList comments for a live FastDrop product by its slug, as a two-level tree (top-level comments and their replies). Removed comments appear as a {deleted: true} tombstone. Unauthenticated - available to any agent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Product slug | |
| limit | No | Max top-level results, 1-50, default 20 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comments | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds beyond this: it reveals the two-level tree structure and that removed comments appear as tombstones, which is useful for agent understanding.
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: two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately provide valuable detail. No unnecessary words.
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 rich annotations, output schema, and clear parameter schema, the description adds necessary context (tree structure, tombstone, authentication) to make the tool fully self-explanatory.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the description adds no additional meaning. This meets the baseline expectation.
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 it lists comments by product slug, and specifies the two-level tree structure (top-level and replies). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_reviews or get_product.
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 clear context: it lists comments for a live FastDrop product by slug, and notes it is unauthenticated. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: searching by capability, getting product details, listing comments, launches, reviews, and searching by text/tags. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (find_tools, get_product, list_comments, list_launches, list_reviews, search_products), with clear and predictable verbs.
Six tools is appropriate for a product discovery server, covering search, detail retrieval, and listing of associated data without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool set covers the core operations for the domain: searching, viewing individual products, and browsing launches, comments, and reviews. No obvious gaps for a read-only discovery service.