list_problem_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond the raw endpoint. It says nothing about pagination behavior, default page size, or that next_page_key ignores other filters — all traits an agent would need.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, so it is concise in the literal sense. However, the terse restatement-plus-endpoint framing leaves the reader with too little to act on, making it under-specified rather than efficiently compressed.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema and only light annotations, the description should carry the burden of describing return shape and pagination mechanics. It provides neither, so an agent must reverse-engineer behavior from the schema and endpoint string alone.

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 coverage is only 67% and the description adds zero parameter meaning. page_size has no description at all (default 50, max 500), and the description doesn't clarify that problem_id accepts a display id like P-12345 or how next_page_key interacts with filtering.

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 names the resource (comments on a problem) and even the underlying endpoint, so the agent can tell it retrieves comments rather than problem metadata. But it is essentially a restatement of the tool name plus a URL path, with no verb of action (list/retrieve) and no differentiation from siblings like get_problem or get_problem_evidence.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this over get_problem, get_problem_evidence, or investigate_problem. The endpoint path implies a read of a sub-resource, but no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated.

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