list_inline_comments

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable context about the data type (inline comments embedded as ProseMirror marks) and the effect of 'includeReplies', enhancing transparency without contradicting 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?

Three sentences efficiently convey purpose, data format, and parameter usage. No superfluous text; the most critical information is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 an output schema present, the description adequately covers the tool's function, output highlights (text and thread ID), and optional behavior. It omits potential details like pagination or filtering, but given the tool's limited parameters and annotations, this is sufficient.

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 basic descriptions. The description adds meaning for 'includeReplies' by explaining its effect ('fetch thread reply messages with sender names') and implicitly clarifies default behavior. Teamspace and document parameters are not elaborated beyond 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?

The description clearly states the action ('List inline comment threads from a Huly document') and specifies the resource (inline comment threads). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_comments' or 'list_drive_file_comments' by emphasizing 'inline' and referencing ProseMirror marks, which is unique to document content.

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 implies usage for inline comments in documents but does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives (e.g., 'list_comments' for general comments). It lacks when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, relying on the tool name and sibling context to infer applicability.

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