Get filtered patch page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does not explicitly state this is a read-only operation, nor does it explain pagination mechanics, session scoping, or response format. The behavior is only implied by the word 'Load.'

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 a single sentence with a clear subject and optional condition. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids unnecessary words, though it achieves brevity at the expense of completeness.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely underspecified. The agent has no information about what the response looks like, what 'patches' refers to, or how status, query, and contextMode affect results. This is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain the seven parameters, but only hints at topicId via 'optionally showing only one comment topic.' Parameters like limit, offset, query, status, and contextMode remain unexplained, leaving the agent unable to construct valid calls confidently.

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 uses the specific verb 'Load' and identifies the resource as 'paginated patches,' with an optional filter by comment topic. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_document or get_feedback.

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 a basic context (paginated listing) but gives no explicit guidance on when this tool should be used over alternative retrieval tools, nor any exclusions. With multiple getter siblings, the lack of differentiation is a gap.

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