list_ticket_comments

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses role-based access (public vs private) but lacks details on ordering, pagination, or output structure. This is minimal but not misleading.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence fronts the purpose, and the second adds critical role-based detail. It is optimally concise for the information conveyed.

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 simple list tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (role-based filtering). Missing are details on output structure and ordering, but given low complexity, it is mostly complete.

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 single parameter 'ticketId' is described in the schema as 'The numeric ID of the support ticket whose comments to retrieve.' With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides, consistent with the baseline of 3.

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 'Returns all comments on a support ticket' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tickets and get_ticket by focusing on comments, and adds role-based behavior (public vs private) that adds clarity.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool and notes access differences for customers vs employees. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like get_ticket or create_ticket_comment.

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