comments_replies_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Returns comment details with pagination support,' which is a basic return-format note, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe any potential side effects. It also lacks details about ordering, depth of replies, or whether the parent comment itself is included in the response.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler. It efficiently conveys both the primary action and the key supporting detail about return format and pagination.

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's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description provides a minimal but adequate overview. It mentions pagination and comment details, but it does not elaborate on the exact return structure, limits, or how pagination parameters interact. Since there is no output schema, the description could have offered more context, but it is not severely incomplete for a list operation.

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% coverage for all three parameters (start, start_id, comment_id), so the description does not need to explain them. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's function: 'Get threaded comments (replies) for a parent comment.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'parent comment' distinguishes it from other comment-listing tools like tasks_comments_list or views_comments_list. The added note about returning comment details with pagination support further clarifies its scope.

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 this tool—when you need replies to a specific parent comment—and clarifies that it returns threaded replies, not all comments. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use it, though the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over sibling comment-list tools.

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