list_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds a genuinely useful prompt-injection warning that collaborator-authored content must be treated as data, not instructions. Minor blemish: the boilerplate phrase 'or in files this tool writes' is inconsistent with a read-only lister that writes nothing, though it does not misrepresent the core operation.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded before the filter note and the security caveat. The security sentence is long boilerplate but carries real value; nothing is redundant with the schema in a wasteful way.

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?

With no output schema, the description should hint at the return shape, but it never says what a comment record contains or how results are ordered/paginated (the { comments, changes } shape only appears inside a parameter description). It is complete on safety and filtering but thin on what comes back.

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% and every parameter (status enum, project_id, include_changes premium caveat, include_context) is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the status filter values, adding no syntax or default behavior beyond structured data, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List review comments on an Overleaf project') and the filterable dimension, which cleanly separates it from the mutating siblings add_comment, reply_to_comment, and resolve_comment. An agent can identify it as the read-side listing tool without opening the schema.

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 only implied: the description says it supports status filtering, but never states when to choose this over get_entities or the comment-mutation siblings, nor when to enable include_changes/include_context (that guidance lives only in the schema). Adequate but no explicit routing.

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