list_work_item_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safe read is known. Description adds valuable context: comments are unsanitized and should be treated as untrusted when rendering, plus explains thread reconstruction structure. This goes beyond 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?

Two sentences efficiently cover action, thread reconstruction, and a security warning. No wasted words; front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 output schema present and annotations as readOnlyHint, the description explains thread reconstruction and security, but does not elaborate on pagination behavior beyond 'flat page'. Minor gap but largely complete for a read tool.

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 50% (only project_id and work_item_id have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-specific details, leaving page_size and page_number behavior implicit. It does not compensate for the moderate coverage gap.

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 it lists a work item's comments as a flat page, with specific detail about thread reconstruction via parent_comment_id and child_comment_ids. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_document_comments (documents) and create_work_item_comments (creation).

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 it's for reading comments but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives like create_work_item_comments or update_work_item_comment, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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