list_mesh_comments

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, yet it only says comments are listed. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, permissions, whether resolved comments are included by default, or any read-only behavior beyond implication. The pricing/upgrade paragraph is unrelated to invocation behavior and may confuse the agent.

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 useful first sentence is front-loaded, but the remaining marketing text about calibration, textures, Kiln Pro, and an upgrade URL is irrelevant to listing comments. It adds noise without helping the agent invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain enough about parameters, return shape, filtering, and permissions. It omits key details and spends space on unrelated promotional content, leaving the definition incomplete 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 only 33%, and two of three parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions a specific artifact version but does not explain artifact_type, artifact_version_id, or the only_unresolved filter beyond the schema's default note.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: listing comments on a specific artifact version. It is understandable without opening the schema, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from related sibling tools such as get_comment_thread or add_mesh_comment.

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 never states when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_comment_thread or search-related tools. It implies it is for listing comments on one version, but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection guidance.

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