bugherd_list_comments

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool lists comments and returns specific fields, but does not clarify if it is read-only, whether pagination or rate limits apply, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic fetch.

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 extremely concise, using one sentence to state the action and another to mention return fields. Every word is necessary and front-loaded.

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 the simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately conveys purpose and return fields. However, it lacks information on pagination, ordering, or potential limits, which are relevant for a list operation.

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 basic descriptions for both parameters (project_id and task_id). The description adds no additional meaning beyond that provided in the schema, such as format constraints or required relationships.

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 action (List), the resource (all comments on a specific task), and what is returned (comment text, author, timestamp). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bugherd_create_comment (create vs list) and bugherd_list_tasks (listing tasks vs 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as bugherd_create_comment for adding comments or bugherd_get_task for task details. No usage context or prerequisites are mentioned.

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