List Wiki comment thread

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description goes further by disclosing the internal reconstruction mechanism, result ordering, and the cap behavior. The only soft spot is the limit semantics, which the description frames as an 'item cap' while the schema calls it 'Max replies', leaving minor ambiguity.

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?

Front-loaded with the return shape, then the rationale and the usage routing. Every sentence carries information, though the middle mechanism sentence is dense enough to slow scanning slightly.

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 tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, cap behavior, and the discovery prerequisite, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Only the exact interaction between limit and the cap remains slightly underspecified.

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 the schema already documents page_id, comment_id, and limit. The description reinforces that comment_id is a root id and that limit overrides the configured cap, but adds little syntactic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (list a Wiki comment thread) and precisely what it returns: a comment plus its replies chained by parent_id in depth-first order. It distinguishes itself from both siblings by name, noting comments_thread_get is dead and comments_list is the discovery step.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow: 'Use comments_list first to discover a root comment id, then this to read its thread.' It also explains why the obvious alternative (comments_thread_get) should not be used because the endpoint is dead, leaving no ambiguity about which tool to pick.

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