gorelo_list_ticket_comments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses cursor pagination, oldest-first default ordering, and the filter narrowing behavior. It does not cover authentication, rate limits, or return format, but these are less critical for a read-only listing operation.

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 with no filler. The most important information—what the tool lists—is front-loaded, followed by pagination and filter behavior in a logical order.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main usage pattern well but omits several parameter semantics and any return-shape hint. An agent could call it correctly for common cases but would have to infer details for pagination and sorting options.

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 compensate. It adds meaning for ticketId, cursor, conversationType, and conversationId, and implies sortOrder through 'oldest-first'. However, pageSize, sortBy, and valid conversationType values remain undocumented, leaving clear gaps.

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 opens with an explicit verb and resource: 'List the comments on a ticket'. The plural 'list' clearly distinguishes it from the singular sibling gorelo_get_ticket_comment, and the added pagination/order details make the scope unmistakable.

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?

It gives concrete selection guidance by explaining three filter levels: no filter, conversationType alone, and conversationType plus conversationId. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so exclusions are left implicit.

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