List Card Comments

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description does not need to repeat it. It adds value beyond the annotations by stating the return shape ('array of comments (simplified per verbosity)') and the id-to-commentId handoff semantics, which are not visible in structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: core purpose, id-handoff workflow, and parameter resolution plus return format. The primary action is front-loaded and there is no filler or restatement of the title.

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?

For a 2-parameter read-only list tool, the combination of 100% schema coverage, rich safety annotations, and a description covering purpose, param resolution, and return type is nearly complete. The only soft spot is the thin return description ('array of comments') given no output schema exists, but the verbosity parameter lets the caller control detail, making this adequate.

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%: cardId already documents its resolution source (kaiten_search_cards/kaiten_get_card) and verbosity documents its enum values and default. The description reinforces these in prose but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for high coverage applies.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('all comments on a card') and explicit scope. The read nature is unambiguous and distinguishes this tool from the comment mutation siblings (kaiten_create_comment, kaiten_update_comment, kaiten_delete_comment) in the sibling list.

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?

Explicitly names the downstream tools that consume the returned comment `id` (kaiten_update_comment, kaiten_delete_comment) and the upstream tools for resolving `cardId` (kaiten_search_cards, kaiten_get_card). This gives an agent a complete workflow map with no inference required.

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