views_comments_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only mentions returning comment details and pagination support, omitting whether the operation is read-only, any ordering, or what fields constitute 'details.' This is minimal for full transparency.

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 the purpose and no filler. It earns its place by clarifying the specific resource and pagination capability.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter, but without an output schema, the vague 'comment details' leaves the return structure unclear. It also doesn't position itself among the numerous comment-related siblings, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 parameter meaning is already documented. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond mentioning pagination support, which is already implied by the start and start_id parameters, so it stays at baseline.

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 gets comments for a ClickUp chat view, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like tasks_comments_list and lists_comments_list by specifying 'chat view,' and mentions pagination support, 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?

The description implies usage for chat view comments but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. Given multiple comment-list siblings, more explicit guidance would be beneficial, but the resource type provides some contextual direction.

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