xenmark_list_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond that: replies are truncated ('replies_truncated', 'up to 3 replies'), warning the agent that results may be partial. It says nothing about pagination behavior or the cursor's meaning.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with no filler. The dense field enumeration is defensible given there is no output schema, though it makes the sentence long.

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?

Because no output schema exists, enumerating the returned fields is genuinely valuable and largely carries the return contract. However, it omits pagination mechanics (how next_cursor/cursor relate) and gives no context on when this list is preferable to sibling listing tools.

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 cursor, revision_id and include_replies_preview are all documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description lightly corroborates the replies-preview behavior but adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 phrase 'Comments on one revision' identifies the resource and scope, and the field list confirms it is a listing operation, but no explicit verb (list/retrieve) nor any differentiation from sibling tools like xenmark_list_replies or xenmark_review_summary is given. An agent can infer intent from the name, but the description itself reads as a return-shape spec rather than a purpose statement.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of what revision_id to supply, and no indication of how this differs from xenmark_list_replies or xenmark_review_summary. The one actionable hint ('quote comment_number to people') is about downstream use, not tool selection.

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