innoslate_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return-content hint ('with the entity each is on') and the marker-feedback context, which is genuinely useful, but it omits filtering behavior and pagination details.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action. The parenthetical adds value rather than bloat.

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 tool with two undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what 'unresolved_only' does or what 'project_url' expects, leaving a real gap before 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%, and the description says nothing about either parameter. The purpose of 'project_url' (which project context) and 'unresolved_only' (filter to open comments) is left entirely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Review comments on the project') and adds a useful hint that these are 'often the marker's feedback'. It distinguishes the tool well enough, though it does not name any sibling or explain how it relates to retrieval tools like innoslate_get.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The parenthetical about the marker's feedback implies context but does not tell the agent when comments are relevant or what prerequisites exist.

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