list_work_item_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is safe. The description adds no further behavioral context—no mention of pagination via cursor/per_page, default ordering, or potential large result sets, leaving a gap beyond the annotations.

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 7-word sentence is optimally concise; it front-loads the purpose and contains no redundant text. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite read-only annotations, the tool has 7 parameters (including pagination and field selection) and no output schema. The minimal description lacks details on pagination, ordering, and parameter semantics, making it incomplete for full agent guidance.

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?

All 7 parameters have no schema descriptions (0% coverage), and the description does not explain or even reference cursor, expand, fields, order_by, or per_page. The description entirely fails to compensate for the absent schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('comments on a work item'), clearly distinguishing it from sister tools like retrieve_work_item_comment (singular) and mutation tools. No ambiguity remains about what this tool does.

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 implies usage when a user needs all comments for a work item, but it does not explicitly offer alternatives or exclusions (e.g., for a single comment, use retrieve_work_item_comment). The context is clear enough, but explicit guidance is absent.

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