Check accepted PDF comments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns, notes the 'best-effort' nature of source file:line anchoring, and explains the acceptance semantics (only accepted comments, not mere suggestions). It doesn't explicitly mention side effects, but as a listing tool, the absence of modification language implies read-only behavior, and the workflow description avoids conflating this tool with edits.

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 information-dense but well-structured: front-loaded purpose, then returned fields, then usage guidance, then workflow, then edge case. Every sentence serves a purpose, no filler. It is longer than average but earns its length by providing crucial operational 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 there is no output schema, the description fully specifies the return data (id, page, quote, source location, instruction) and the none-case. It also provides necessary workflow context (open source, edit, resolve_comment) and clarifies what counts as accepted. This is complete for an agent to invoke and process the tool correctly.

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% for the single optional parameter includeResolved, with a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not mention the parameter, but since the schema fully documents it, the description adds no additional value; baseline 3 applies.

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 tool 'List the comments the user has accepted on the rendered PDF', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like add_comment or resolve_comment by focusing on listing accepted comments and enumerating the returned fields (id, page, quote, source location, instruction).

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?

Explicitly explains when to use: 'Call this when the user asks to address/check my comments' or on each pass of an agent loop. It also specifies a workflow (open source, edit, resolve_comment) and clarifies an edge case: if none returned, reviewer suggestions not yet accepted don't count. This gives clear context and practical direction.

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