List Wiki comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it is auto-paginated and drains next_cursor internally, and results are capped at the configured item cap unless limit is passed.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero filler; the core purpose and the pagination/cap behavior are front-loaded before the optional pairing hint.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, auto-pagination, and result capping adequately. Non-essential gaps remain (return field shape, ordering defaults), but nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are documented in the schema itself, which sets the baseline at 3. The description echoes the limit-vs-cap semantics (YCLI__HTTP__MAX_ITEMS) but adds no new meaning for order_by, order_direction, or status_filter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Comments on a page id'), so the agent knows it retrieves comments scoped to a page. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling wiki_comments_thread_list, leaving ambiguity about which comment-listing tool to pick.

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?

It offers a useful pairing tip (use pages_get_meta to learn the total comment count) and explains the limit-vs-cap behavior. It stops short of saying when to choose this over the thread-oriented siblings or naming an alternative, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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