List comments

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: it specifies Drive API usage, requires a Drive OAuth scope, explains that include_deleted returns tombstones, and describes pagination with page_token. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently covers return shape, pagination, deleted handling, auth, and downstream usage in four concise sentences. Every sentence adds distinct value and there is no repetition of schema content.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and behaviors. It covers pagination, deleted comments, authentication scope, and the relationship to manage_comment. For a read-only list tool with rich annotations, nothing essential is missing.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds some context by explaining the tombstone semantics of include_deleted and that page_token is for pagination, but it does not significantly deepen parameter understanding beyond what the schema already states.

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: 'Lists the document's comment threads via the Drive API,' then enumerates exactly what is returned (ids, content, author, timestamps, resolved flag, quotedFileContent, replies). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like manage_comment or read_document_text by emphasizing it is read-only and Drive-specific.

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 states when to use it: to retrieve comment threads, with pagination and optional deleted-comment inclusion. It also provides routing guidance by saying 'Comment ids feed manage_comment,' and warns about the OAuth scope requirement. It does not explicitly say 'do not use for editing comments,' but the read-only framing and sibling relationship make the intended usage clear.

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