list_comments

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It adds a constraint that object_id requires object_type and lists allowed values, but it does not disclose default pagination (page/limit), the effect of leaving filters empty, or how the response is structured. The output schema exists, but behavior beyond that is underexplained.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The additional lines about object_type and object_id are efficient and add necessary constraints without waste.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention pagination behavior, project/author filtering, or how to call the tool effectively beyond object_type. The complexity is moderate, but the description leaves significant gaps in usage 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains object_type and object_id dependency, but ignores page, limit, project, and author_user_id. This leaves most parameters undocumented, so the description only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('comments'), and specifies the types of objects comments can be attached to. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_comment and get_comment.

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 implies usage by listing valid object types and indicating a dependency between object_id and object_type, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no guidance on pagination or project filtering, so the context is limited.

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