list_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify if it returns all comments at once or uses pagination, what the output format is (e.g., array of comment objects), or any error conditions (e.g., invalid task ID). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all comments for a specific task') with zero wasted words. Every element earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary detail.

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 complexity (3 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., comment objects with IDs, text, timestamps), how errors are handled, or any limitations (e.g., maximum comments returned). For a list operation with no structured output information, this leaves the agent guessing about the result format and behavior.

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%, with all three parameters ('taskId', 'commentId', 'comment') documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'taskId' is required to scope the listing. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 resource ('comments for a specific task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_comment' by focusing on retrieval rather than modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list operations like 'list_attachments' or 'list_task_labels' beyond the resource type.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid task ID), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'get_task' (which might include comments). The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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