list_change_request_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the filtering behavior and defaults (e.g., default state OPENED, default commentType GLOBAL_COMMENT) but does not mention pagination, ordering, or whether the tool returns both global and inline comments if no type is specified. The description is accurate but not exhaustive.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and lists filters concisely. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema. The description covers the main filtering capabilities and defaults, which is sufficient for a list operation. It could mention pagination or response format, but given the schema richness, it is reasonably complete.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a brief summary of filters but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. It mentions filePath is for inline comments, which is also in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists comments on a change request, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('comments on a change request'). It also enumerates the filtering dimensions (comment type, state, resolved status, file path), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_change_request_comment and update_change_request_comment.

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 for retrieving comments with optional filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_work_item_comments for work items). It provides clear context on what it does but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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