list_document_comments

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

Description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: notes that comments are returned as a flat page with thread reconstruction via parent_comment_id and child_comment_ids, and crucial security warning that text is unsanitized and should be treated as untrusted. No contradiction with 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 short sentences: first states purpose, second explains threading, third warns about unsanitized text. No fluff, front-loaded with essential information.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (hierarchy not shown but assumed), the description provides sufficient context: flat list with threading hints and security note. Pagination is handled by parameters in schema, so the description is complete enough for an agent to understand usage and result interpretation.

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?

Input schema has 60% description coverage (3 of 5 parameters described). The description does not explain the two undocumented parameters (page_size, page_number) nor add meaning beyond the schema for the described ones. The description only mentions parameters indirectly via comment structure, not the pagination controls.

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?

Tool name and description clearly state 'List a document's comments', specifying the resource (document comments) and action (list). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_document_comments, update_document_comment, and list_work_item_comments by focusing on listing comments in a flat page with thread reconstruction details.

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 like list_work_item_comments. The description implies its use for flat comment listing, but does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria, nor mention any prerequisites or constraints beyond the required parameters.

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