weeek_list_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation but discloses nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering of comments, or permission requirements for a tool that queries another resource by id.

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?

A single five-word sentence with the resource and operation front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though so terse that it risks being under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. Since there is no output schema, an agent gets no hint about the shape or volume of returned comments, which is a real gap.

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 100% for the single parameter (taskId: 'Task id'), so the schema already documents it. The description adds only the implicit relation that taskId identifies the task whose comments are returned, which is the baseline expectation rather than extra meaning.

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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (a task's comments), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like weeek_list_projects or weeek_add_comment. However, it does nothing to differentiate itself from the other list_* tools beyond the resource noun, so it falls short of a 5.

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 weeek_list_tasks or weeek_add_comment, nor any stated preconditions (e.g., whether the task must exist or the caller needs access). The only implicit context is the pronoun 'a task's'.

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