get_list_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what the response format looks like, whether pagination is available, or any rate limits or authorization requirements. The start and start_id parameters hint at pagination but the description doesn't explain this behavior.

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 extremely short — one sentence, no filler. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the minimalism borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only 33% schema description coverage, the description needs to compensate significantly. The two undocumented pagination parameters (start, start_id) suggest pagination behavior that the description completely fails to explain. Given the complexity of a comments endpoint with pagination, this is inadequate.

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 only 33% — of the 3 parameters, only list_id has a schema description, and that's just 'The list ID'. The start and start_id parameters have no description, and the tool description doesn't explain what they do. The description adds essentially no 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 'Get all comments on a list' clearly states the action (get) and resource (comments on a list), which is specific. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_task_comments or get_chat_view_comments, though the resource name is somewhat clear. The sibling create_list_comment suggests a related create operation exists.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_task_comments or get_chat_view_comments. It doesn't mention pagination, ordering, or any filtering capabilities, nor does it clarify how start and start_id parameters might relate to pagination behavior.

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