list_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation but fails to disclose important behaviors such as pagination (limit/offset), default ordering, or what happens with no scoping. The agent gets minimal behavioral context.

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, which is concise. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it too minimal for the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations).

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It provides the main purpose but omits return values, pagination details, and default behavior, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 marginally helps by hinting at the scoping parameters (document_id, collection_id) but completely ignores limit, offset, and include_anchor_text. The agent has no semantic guidance for these parameters.

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 comments') and the resource ('comments'), with an optional scoping to a document or collection. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_comment (creation) and list_documents (different resource).

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 that the tool is for listing comments and can be scoped, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., when to use create_comment instead) or when not to use it. No exclusions 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.