list_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'list comments' but omits any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, pagination defaults, rate limits, or required permissions. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's side effects and constraints.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and identifier formats. No redundant words.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to explain what the response looks like (e.g., list of comment objects), pagination behavior (limit/offset), or any default ordering. The agent lacks essential context for successful invocation.

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 100%, meeting the high baseline. The description adds value by providing concrete identifier examples (e.g., LIF-42, LIF-DOC-3, DOC-3), which helps the agent format input correctly. This goes beyond the schema's generic description of 'identifier'.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'comments', and it specifies the allowed resource types (issue IDs like LIF-42, page IDs like LIF-DOC-3, workspace page IDs like DOC-3). This fully clarifies what the tool does and differentiates it from sibling tools like add_comment, delete_comment, etc.

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 (e.g., use this to read, use add_comment to post). It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context where this tool is appropriate.

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