List Tracker entity comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description contributes the payload shape (what fields come back), which is modest added value but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or empty/missing-entity behavior.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the scope and then enumerates the return fields, with no filler. The em-dash fragment construction is slightly informal but costs nothing in clarity.

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 read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient: it names the entity scope and the payload fields. It stops short of covering ordering, pagination, or how it relates to the sibling relative-list and single-get tools.

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 entity_type, entity_id, and expand are all documented in the schema itself; the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implicitly scoping to 'an entity'. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 pairs a clear verb+resource ('all comments on an entity') with a preview of the returned fields (author, text, timestamps, summoned users), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like tracker_entities_comments_get or tracker_entities_comments_list_relative.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as the 'relative' list variant or the single-comment getter. The agent must infer the selection criteria from the name alone.

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