List comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: resolved comments are excluded by default and are surfaced only on request, plus the shape of what comes back (file, line, text, replies) despite no output schema.

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 sentences with zero filler; the resource and returned fields come first, and the one non-obvious parameter rule is front-loaded immediately after.

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 output schema, the description usefully sketches the return shape, and it resolves the only undocumented parameter. Minor gaps remain — no pagination or ordering behavior for a list tool that could grow large.

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 coverage is 67%; project_id and response_format are already documented, but include_resolved has no schema description, and the description supplies exactly that missing semantics (default false, opt-in to resolved). That is a real gain beyond the structured fields.

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 specific verb and resource ('List review comments of a project') and even enumerates the returned fields (file, line, commented text, replies). It contrasts implicitly with the write-side siblings (add/reply/resolve/delete_comment) via the 'List' verb, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Use is implied by the verb, and one usage-shaping rule is given ('Resolved comments only with include_resolved=true'). There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over typst_get_project or other read tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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