List comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the return structure (id, text, blockId or null) and explains the meaning of null (floating free vs attached to a block), which is valuable behavioral context. It also clarifies the tool has no side effects (a list operation). This goes beyond what the schema offers, though it doesn't mention pagination or ordering.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence states purpose and identifies the resource; the second sentence precisely details the return shape. Information is front-loaded, and every clause contributes to clarity.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the essential return format. It fully explains what an agent will receive. Minor gaps like ordering or error conditions are not critical for a list operation, and the description is sufficient for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'target' parameter, which is fully described in the schema as 'Sprite name, or "Stage".' The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the description does not need to compensate for coverage.

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 'List' and the resource 'a target's workspace comments', and differentiates from sibling comment tools like add_comment and remove_comment by focusing on the listing operation. It also provides concrete identification ('yellow sticky notes shown in the editor') which removes ambiguity.

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 purpose is unambiguous: the tool lists comments for a target. No explicit mention of alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know to use this for retrieval rather than modification. The description does not name sibling tools, but the verb 'list' implies its role in the comment workflow.

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