list_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries more weight. It discloses a useful behavioral detail: comment IDs follow the pattern {reviewId}_c{...}, which is critical for replying to comments. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but for a simple list operation this is acceptable.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds the useful ID-format context. No wasted words.

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 low-complexity list tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose, target resource, and a key usage note. It omits things like pagination, but the output schema likely carries return details, and the description is adequate for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lone review_id parameter. It implies review_id identifies the thought/review by saying '某条想法下', but it does not explicitly define the parameter or its format. Some meaning is added, but not fully.

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 tool lists comments under a specific thought/review, with a specific resource ('某条想法下的评论列表'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like add_comment by focusing on retrieval rather than creation.

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 explicitly says '回复评论时用它' (use it when replying to comments), giving a clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when this tool is relevant.

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