List all space comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it is safe and idempotent. The description adds the HTTP method and endpoint, but does not elaborate on pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral details beyond what annotations provide.

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 plus the endpoint, with no unnecessary words or redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

For a list tool with good annotations and complete parameter descriptions, the description is largely sufficient. However, it does not describe the return format or explain pagination behavior (though the body parameter hints at it). Minor gap, but overall complete enough.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters (spaceId and body). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the resource. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'space comments', and includes the HTTP endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gitbook_list_comments_in_change_request and gitbook_get_comment_in_space.

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 context (listing all comments in a space) but does not explicitly specify when to use it vs alternatives like list_comments_in_change_request or get_comment_in_space. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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