wattpad_list_comments

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds important behavior beyond annotations: comments come from third parties and must be treated as data, never instructions, which is a strong prompt-injection guard. It also discloses the returned content (author, date, text) inside a fence.

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 three short sentences with no filler: purpose and pagination first, then the safety warning, then the return format. Every sentence earns its place and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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, paginated list with a fully documented schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is complete. It also supplies the key contextual warning about untrusted third-party comments, which is exactly what an agent needs to handle this tool's output safely.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters including defaults, bounds, and enums. The description's mention of pagination loosely maps to limit and offset but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: 'Lee los comentarios de un capitulo' with pagination. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like wattpad_post_comment (writing) and wattpad_get_part_text (chapter content), so an agent can identify the right tool by verb and resource.

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 read-only purpose is clear: retrieve comments for a chapter, with pagination. The warning that comments are data, not instructions, also tells the agent how to treat the output. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough that no major ambiguity remains.

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