List comments

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., pagination behavior, ordering, whether system notes are included). It does not contradict the annotations, but it also doesn't go beyond what structured data already states.

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 that states exactly what the tool does. It wastes no words and includes the key scope (target types), making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple listing tool with rich schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is sufficient to convey the core behavior. No output schema exists, but the term 'comments (notes)' makes the return value unambiguous. It could mention pagination or that it returns a list, but the tool name covers this. Overall, it is nearly complete for this complexity level.

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 78%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description itself does not elaborate on any parameter semantics beyond naming the target types, which the schema already enumerates. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 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 'Lists comments (notes) on an issue, merge request, snippet or epic.' This gives a specific verb, a clear resource type, and the supported target types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gitlab_list_discussions or gitlab_create_note.

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 when to use the tool (to fetch comments on a specifiable target type) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like gitlab_list_discussions or provide any exclusions. The context is clear enough from the name and schema, but no additional guidance is given.

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