list_comments_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does state the sorting and the fields returned, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation (no side effects), nor does it mention any pagination or limits. The description leaves the read-only nature implicit, which is a gap given the absence of annotations.

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 sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and then provides targeted usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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 the tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, sorting, output fields, and filtering guidance. It does not explain project_path, but that is likely standard. The description is adequate for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it could mention that the operation is read-only or any implicit side effects. Overall, it is complete enough for this tool's complexity.

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 explain parameters. It effectively explains include_resolved and open_actions_only with usage context. project_path is not explained, but it is a required path parameter whose meaning is fairly obvious from the context. The description adds significant value for the two boolean parameters, partially compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action: 'List timeline review comments' with a specific sort order (by timeline_start). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_comment_tool or get_comment_tool by focusing on listing, and the resource is explicit. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to set include_resolved=false (agent work queue) and open_actions_only=true (incomplete action items). This gives clear context for parameter usage. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives to this tool, such as get_comment_tool for a single comment, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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