list_document_comments

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that the result is a flat page, threading via parent_comment_id, and that HTML is not sanitized—crucial behavioral traits for safe consumption. 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 with front-loaded purpose, each sentence adding essential detail without redundancy. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers essential nuances (flat page, threading, HTML unsanitized) and provides sufficient context for a list operation, complemented by the schema and annotations.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (project_id, space_id, document_name, page_size, page_number). The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'List comments attached to a Polarion document,' providing a specific verb and resource. It also explains the flat page structure and threading, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_document_comments or update_document_comment.

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 gives context about the flat page structure and HTML unsanitized, implying appropriate usage, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for creating/updating comments). Sibling names provide implicit distinction but not explicit guidance.

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