kitty.comments.list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List comments', which implies a read operation, but it does not describe the return format, pagination, ordering, or whether the comments include metadata like authors or timestamps. The agent is left without critical information about what to expect from the response.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, it could be slightly enriched without sacrificing conciseness, so it does not earn the top score reserved for descriptions that pack in both brevity and additional context.

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 tool's simplicity and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior. It fails to specify return values, ordering, or any filtering/scope limitations, making it incomplete for a production context.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (ticketId and projectSlug). The description itself adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 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?

The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('comments') with the context 'for a ticket', which is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like add_comment and other list tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other potential comment-related tools or mention any scoping nuances.

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 when to use a specific ticket-level comment list versus other list tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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