lists_comments_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns comment details and supports pagination, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects (though 'get' implies read-only). It adds some context but is not exceptionally rich.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and containing no fluff. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (single required parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers the core behavior and pagination. It does not detail the return structure, but that is not required since no output schema exists and the endpoint is simple. Minor gaps include lack of explicit mention of authentication or error scenarios, but these are not critical for this level of complexity.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description mentions 'pagination support' but does not add detail beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The baseline of 3 applies as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 action ('Get comments') and the resource ('for a ClickUp list'), distinguishing it from sibling comment tools like tasks_comments_list and views_comments_list. It also mentions the return of comment details, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 the use case (fetching comments for a list) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. Context is clear, but no exclusions or comparisons to sibling comment tools are provided.

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