kaiten_list_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds two real behavioral facts beyond that: comment text is not truncated, and pagination is applied locally rather than server-side — genuinely useful for an agent reasoning about limit/offset. It stops short of covering ordering, total counts, or behavior on an invalid card_id.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the behavioral note follows the purpose statement in a logical order. It is arguably over-terse given the missing parameter explanation, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no usage guidance, the definition is thinner than the complexity warrants — an agent gets no help on card_id validation or how limit/offset interact with local pagination.

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 0% for all three parameters, so the description carries the burden and mostly does not: it never explains card_id, limit, or offset, their defaults, or the maximum of 100. The one semantic hint — that pagination is applied locally — implies limit/offset are clientside slices, which is valuable but insufficient compensation for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read card comments'), which clearly separates it from the write siblings kaiten_add_comment, kaiten_update_comment and kaiten_delete_comment. It never names those siblings or the related kaiten_get_card explicitly, so differentiation is implied by the verb rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; the agent must infer from the name that this is the listing counterpart to the comment mutation tools. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g. needing a valid card_id) or of alternatives such as kaiten_get_card.

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