tasks_comments_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that it returns comment details and implies a read operation, which is helpful. However, it does not mention pagination behavior—despite the schema having start and start_id parameters—or any potential side effects or requirements. The description is not misleading but leaves out important behavioral 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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Get comments') and includes only necessary information. Every word earns its place, 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 read tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return fields. However, it omits pagination behavior, which is a notable gap given the schema includes pagination parameters. It is minimally complete but fails to fully prepare an agent for paginated responses or edge cases.

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% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as explaining that task_id is the task to fetch comments for or that start/start_id control pagination. It does not degrade but also does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('comments for a ClickUp task'), and adds value by specifying what is returned (text, author, timestamps). This distinguishes it from sibling comment tools like views_comments_list or lists_comments_list, which target different entities.

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 provides clear context by scoping the tool to task comments and describing the return content, making when to use it obvious. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would have earned a 5. The phrase 'for a ClickUp task' implicitly differentiates it from comment tools for other resources.

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