Check accepted PDF comments

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

Describes return fields (id, page, passage, source location, instruction) and behavioral nuance (only accepted comments, not pending). With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden and is transparent about scope and limitations.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and usage. Slightly verbose due to embedded workflow steps, but each sentence adds value. Could be more concise by separating workflow from tool description.

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?

Provides sufficient context for the tool's return value and usage scenario. Lacks error handling or pagination info, but adequate for a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema.

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?

Single optional boolean parameter with schema coverage 100%. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists accepted PDF comments as work items. Distinguishes from siblings like resolve_comment and add_comment by specifying it only returns accepted comments (not pending suggestions).

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?

Explicitly tells when to call: when user asks to 'address/check my comments' or in an agent loop watching for new comments. Also clarifies that pending suggestions don't count, and provides step-by-step post-processing instructions.

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