list_comments

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond annotations: 'Returns comments in chronological order (oldest first)' and the pagination shape. Minor gap: no mention of error behavior for nonexistent file IDs, but this is acceptable for a safe read-only tool.

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 organized into clear sections with the one-line summary front-loaded. Each section earns its place. The Returns section is slightly redundant given that an output schema exists, but it is compact and clarifies pagination field names.

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, paginated list tool with annotations covering safety, this is complete: purpose, ordering behavior, prerequisite lookup, parameter constraints, and return format are all specified. Nothing an agent needs 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full load — and it succeeds. All three parameters get meaningful semantics: file_id gets provenance ('Get this from list_directory'), limit gets a range (1-100) plus default, and offset gets its pagination purpose. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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?

Opens with 'List comments on a file' — a specific verb + resource statement that fully conveys the operation. It is clearly differentiated from its comment-related siblings (add_comment, edit_comment, delete_comment), which are all mutations, so an agent can tell the read operation apart immediately.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use the tool and the prerequisite step: 'Use list_directory to find a file's ID (file_id field).' This gives clear context without needing to enumerate exclusions, since the read-vs-write split among comment siblings makes the selection obvious.

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