list_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context—it doesn't mention that comments are scoped to a document, pagination via limit/offset, or what the returned list contains. It merely restates the tool's name, providing no value beyond 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 a single, grammatically correct sentence with no fluff, and the information is front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification rather than being appropriately concise. It's not verbose, but it also doesn't earn its place by being informative.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, but it doesn't. It also fails to mention that comments are tied to a specific document type and ID, which are required parameters. The annotations are good, but the description is incomplete for a tool that requires a document context and returns a paginated list.

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%, with all four parameters (kb_document_type, document_id, limit, offset) having meaningful descriptions in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema already carries the full semantic load, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'comments', which is specific enough to indicate a list operation. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, but no other comment-list tool exists in the sibling set, and 'comments' is a distinct resource. However, it lacks the context that comments are attached to specific documents, which would make the purpose clearer.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The schema implies it requires a document type and ID, but the description doesn't explain this. In a large sibling set of list_* tools, this lack of usage context is a significant gap.

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