List comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' largely repeats structured data. The description earns credit by disclosing the return shape (id, author, date, pin target, text, replies) and the sort order ('oldest first'), which is behavior the annotations cannot convey and which matters because no output schema exists.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose, return contract, then usage and routing. Front-loaded with what the tool does and free of filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of enumerating returned fields and ordering, and parameters are fully documented in the schema. Minor gaps remain around result volume or pagination behavior for boards with many threads.

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%, including the non-obvious 'open' sentinel for board and the default-false semantics for include_resolved, so the schema carries the meaning. The description adds only the implicit ordering, not parameter-level detail, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the comment threads on a board') and immediately distinguishes itself from the mutation siblings by naming the reply/resolve tools as follow-ups. An agent knows this is the read side of the comment workflow without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly gives the triggering context ('when the person asks you to review a board or answer comments') and routes to the downstream tools reply_comment and resolve_comment. It does not, however, state when NOT to use it (e.g. vs read_board or list_boards), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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