List comments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses pagination, optional filters, and authentication requirements (comments:read scope). It does not detail response shape or ordering, but for a read-only listing tool this is adequate.

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 concise sentences front-load the primary action, pagination, filters, and scope. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a moderately simple listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, filters, pagination, and auth. It lacks return-format details, but the schema covers parameters and the tool is not behaviorally complex, so it is adequately complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond restating the filter options and pagination. It does not introduce new parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('comments'), with clear scope markers: pagination, optional filters, and required scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like moderate_comment (which alters comment state) and list_posts (which lists posts).

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to retrieve comments, optionally filtered by post or moderation status, and requires the comments:read scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes the usage straightforward.

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