list_document_comments

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, consistent with listing. Description adds valuable detail: comments are returned as a flat page, threads via parent/child IDs, and text is unsanitized (security warning). Exceeds annotation info.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences, no redundant words. Front-loaded with purpose, then threading and security warning. 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?

For a read-only list tool with output schema present, description covers purpose, threading, and security. Sufficient for correct invocation and understanding.

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 60% (3/5 params described). Description does not enhance parameter understanding beyond schema; it mentions parent_comment_id but this is output behavior, not parameter detail. No compensation for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'List a document's comments as a flat page.' with specific verb and resource. Explains threading via parent_comment_id and child_comment_ids, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_work_item_comments.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The sibling list includes list_work_item_comments, but description does not differentiate or provide use cases.

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