List comments

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation by saying 'Read', but it adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotation already provides. There is no mention of behavior for missing annotations, rate limits, or other side effects.

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 concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. However, it could benefit from slight expansion to include parameter context or return value, though it remains appropriately front-loaded.

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's simplicity (one required param, no output schema, read-only), the description is minimally adequate but lacks details about the return format, ordering, or pagination. It provides enough to infer basic usage but not full context.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter (annotation_id) with no description. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the parameter's meaning and format, but it only implies that an annotation identifier is needed without any details.

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 clearly states the tool reads the discussion thread on an annotation, using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_comment' (write) and 'get_annotation' (annotation details).

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 implies the tool should be used when you need to view comments on an annotation, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_annotation' or 'list_annotation_issues'. No when-not or exclusions are mentioned.

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