ado_list_comments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool performs a live fetch, which is useful, and 'List' implies a non-destructive read. However, it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or any side effects, so transparency is only partially addressed.

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?

One short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and the parenthetical 'fetched live from Azure DevOps' adds meaningful context without bloating the description.

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 simple single-parameter read-only tool, the description plus schema is sufficient for an agent to understand what it does and how to invoke it. The only missing elements are optional details like the shape of the returned comments or pagination behavior, which are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already documents work_item_id fully with type, bounds, and a 'Work item ID' description, giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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 states a specific action ('List'), a precise resource ('comments on a work item'), and a source ('Azure DevOps'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also naturally distinguishes itself from write-focused siblings like ado_add_comment and ado_update.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent would use this when it needs to retrieve comments for a particular work item. The phrase 'fetched live' hints that this tool should be chosen when fresh data is required, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives.

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