lokalise_list_project_comments

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It warns about data-intensity for large projects and mentions return format (grouped by key). But it omits auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior on invalid projectId, which are relevant for a listing tool.

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 structured with purpose, parameters, use cases, and a warning. It is slightly verbose (5 sentences) but each sentence adds value, and front-loading is reasonable.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter usage, use cases, and a performance warning. It lacks pagination details beyond page param (in schema) but is largely complete for a list tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description restates parameter info (required/optional, limit default) already present in the schema, adding no new semantic detail.

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 tool fetches all comments across an entire project, distinguishing it from key-specific comment tools like lokalise_list_key_comments. It specifies the scope (project-level) and resource (comments).

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 use cases (identify active discussions, audit patterns, find unresolved questions) and mentions required/optional parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives like lokalise_list_key_comments.

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