uselink_list_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'threaded' but does not explain ordering, whether resolved comments are included, pagination behavior, or what fields are returned in the response. The one-word hint about structure is insufficient.

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 a single sentence with no fluff, directly stating the core function. It is concise and front-loaded, but it sacrifices useful substance for brevity, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter descriptions, the description is far too minimal. An agent cannot determine return format, pagination behavior, or how 'threaded' affects the response, making the tool poorly specified for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies document_id's role via 'on a document' but offers no explanation of limit or offset, which are standard pagination parameters but still undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.

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 lists threaded comments on a document, using the specific verb 'list' and a resource ('threaded comments on a document'). This distinguishes it from comment-writing tools like uselink_reply_comment and document-read tools like uselink_read_document.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as uselink_reply_comment or uselink_resolve_comment. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical workflows, or why one would choose this over related comment operations.

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