scf_list_comments

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which the description reinforces with 'read — viewer role'. Beyond that, the description adds behavioral specifics: ordering ('oldest first'), content ('authors, mentions and reply structure'). This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying what the returned thread contains and how it is sorted. No contradictions exist between description and annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('List the comment thread'), then adds scoping, role, ordering, and content details. Every clause contributes meaning without redundancy. It is concise and immediately informative.

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 simple read-only tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the scope, the read-only nature, and expected output structure. It does not mention pagination or potential large result sets, but that is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling mutation tools that clarify its role.

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%: both commentable_id and commentable_type have descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond the schema—it restates the allowed types (control, evidence, task) which are already in the enum, and implies the pairing via 'on one control, evidence item or task'. Since the schema already documents the parameters adequately, the description's marginal value is limited, fitting the baseline 3.

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 verb ('List') and a specific resource ('comment thread') scoped to one control, evidence item, or task, with ordering and content details. It clearly distinguishes itself from the comment mutation siblings (scf_create_comment, scf_update_comment, scf_delete_comment) by explicitly being a read operation. The viewer-role note further clarifies the operation's nature.

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 clearly indicates this is a read-only operation for listing a comment thread on a specific item, which implies its use case. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide a 'when not to use' condition beyond the read/write distinction. The sibling set includes comment creation/update/delete, so the read vs. write contrast is implicitly understood but not stated explicitly.

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