Get work item comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful behavior context: results are paged and the returned comment ids feed into update_work_item_comment, which goes beyond the structured metadata.

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?

Two short, purposeful sentences with no filler. Pagination is front-loaded, and the second sentence explains why the tool matters by linking to update_work_item_comment.

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 read-only list operation with strong annotations and mostly self-documenting parameters, the description covers the key context: what is listed, pagination, and downstream use. A fully explicit output shape is absent, but the stated purpose of returning comment ids is sufficient 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?

The description itself does not explain individual parameters, but the input schema already covers 71% of them with meaningful descriptions for id, top, format, project, and continuationToken. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, landing at the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('discussion comments of a work item') and notes pagination. It also explains the practical purpose by stating it returns comment ids needed for update_work_item_comment, which distinguishes this tool from sibling comment-related tools.

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 gives clear context: this tool lists comments and returns IDs needed for updating a comment. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the purpose statement makes the primary use case evident.

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