list_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'List' clearly conveys a non-mutating read operation, but the description does not mention ordering, pagination, comment scope, or whether deleted comments are included. It is adequate but minimal.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter listing tool.

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 one-parameter list tool, the description plus input/output schemas provide a workable baseline. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and behavioral context such as ordering or pagination, and there are no annotations to compensate.

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?

The schema has one required integer task_id with no property descriptions (0% coverage). The phrase 'on a task' clarifies that task_id identifies the task whose comments are listed, but the mapping is implicit and no additional formatting or usage detail is provided.

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 identifies the resource ('comments') and scope ('on a task'). It is clearly the read counterpart to add_comment, update_comment, and delete_comment, though it does not explicitly call out sibling distinctions.

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?

Usage is implied: the name and description indicate this tool lists comments for a given task, while sibling comment tools cover creation, update, and deletion. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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