list_task_comments

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. The phrase 'List comments' implies a read-only operation, but no additional behavioral details are disclosed—such as whether results are ordered, whether deleted comments are included, or what the response structure is. The description is minimal and adds no transparency beyond the tool's name.

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, focused sentence with no redundancy or filler. It conveys exactly what the tool does in the fewest words possible, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 list tool with a fully documented schema, the description is adequate but lacks any mention of the return format (e.g., array of comment objects) or additional context like whether pagination is mandatory. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about what the tool returns would improve completeness, but the current level is minimally viable.

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 all four parameters (project_id, task_id, page, per_page) already have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter context, but it does not need to because the schema handles the semantics fully. Baseline score of 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 'List comments on a task' uses a specific verb (list) and resource (comments on a task), making it unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like add_task_comment, edit_task_comment, and delete_task_comment by focusing on the read-only listing operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any specific context, such as pagination behavior, filtering use cases, or that this is the appropriate tool for retrieving all comments on a task. The description leaves usage entirely to inference from the name.

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