lokalise_list_key_comments

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

No annotations are provided, but the description states it returns a paginated list with author, timestamp, and content. Since it is a read-only retrieval, no destructive behavior is expected, and the description adequately conveys the basic behavior without contradictions.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then parameters, then use cases. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return format (paginated list with author, timestamp, content). The tool is simple and the description covers all necessary context for invocation.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by restating required/optional fields and default values, but does not provide new meaning 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 clearly states 'Retrieves all comments for a specific translation key,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning pairing with lokalise_create_comments, and context implies it is for a single key, different from projekt-level listing.

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 explicitly says when to use: 'Use this to review translator questions, see implementation notes, or audit collaboration.' It lists required and optional parameters and mentions a paired tool, but does not exclude alternatives or specify when not to use.

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