list_change_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return content (inline vs file-level, unresolved status, reply chains), implying a read-only operation. However, it doesn't mention pagination or authentication requirements, leaving some transparency gaps.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. No fluff; information about return types and status is efficiently included.

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?

With one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently outlines what is returned (inline comments with location, file-level comments, unresolved status, reply chains). It lacks details like pagination, but for a list tool of this simplicity, it is near-complete.

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% with `change_id` described. The description adds no new parameter info, but the schema already fully explains the parameter, so 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?

Clearly states 'List all comments on a Gerrit change', identifying the verb (list), resource (comments), and scope (on a change). It distinguishes from write-oriented siblings like post_review_comment and get_change_details by focusing specifically on listing comments with details like inline/file-level and status.

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?

Provides clear context that this is for retrieving comments, but does not explicitly state when to use over alternatives or mention exclusions. No comparison to siblings like get_change_details, so it's implied rather than explicit.

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