get_list_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the core action. It does not mention pagination behavior despite the presence of start and start_id parameters, nor does it disclose any permissions, rate limits, or return format. This lack of detail leaves the agent without critical operational context.

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, concise sentence that directly and clearly states the tool's purpose with zero filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal 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?

Given the tool has three parameters including pagination controls and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain the pagination mechanism (how to fetch truly 'all' comments), the structure of the returned comments, or any side effects. The agent would lack essential information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 input schema provides 100% documentation of all three parameters (start, list_id, start_id) with clear descriptions, so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't clarify how pagination works or its relationship to 'all comments,' so the 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 clearly identifies the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get all comments on a ClickUp list.' It effectively distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_task_comments by explicitly scoping to list-level comments, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_task_comments or when to prefer this over other comment-related tools. The usage context is implied by the resource scope ('list'), but there is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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