swit-message-comment-list

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits but does not. It states 'Retrieve list' but omits details like pagination behavior (offset/limit handling), ordering, error cases (e.g., empty list), or whether comments are nested. The description lacks transparency about what happens when parameters are omitted.

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 very short (6 words), which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the core action, but every sentence should earn its place. Here, the brevity sacrifices necessary details like pagination, making it borderline under-specified.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters (one required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or how to handle the response. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without additional knowledge.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning to parameters. However, it adds no context beyond parameter names. 'message_id' is somewhat self-explanatory, but 'offset' and 'limit' are not explained regarding format, defaults, or whether offset is 0-based. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Retrieve list of comments on message' clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'list of comments on message', which differentiates it from sibling tools like swit-message-comment-create (create comment) and other list tools (e.g., swit-project-list). It is specific and unambiguous.

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. There is no mention of required context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Sibling tools are present (e.g., create comment, channel list) but are not referenced for comparison.

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