list_comments

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates it's a read-only operation. The description adds context about the returned fields (text, author, timestamps, attachments, mentions) and clarifies filtering options, including extra_filters for discussion threads. It does not contradict the annotation and provides useful behavioral details without needing to mention side effects.

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 structured with a clear purpose statement, a 'Use this when' section, a 'Returns' list, and a specific tip about extra_filters. It is somewhat wordy but each section earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to scan.

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?

The description is complete for a list tool, covering what it returns (comment metadata, parent entity, threads, attachments, mentions) and how to filter. Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return content. It includes a specific example of using extra_filters for discussion threads, which is sufficient for practical use.

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 description coverage is 100% (all five parameters have descriptions). The description adds slight value by mentioning 'filter by project or task' and specifically calling out 'extra_filters with filter[discussion_id][eq]', but these are already implied in the schema descriptions. Since coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: 'List comments with optional filtering by project or task.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('comments'), and distinguishes from sibling tools that list other entities like tasks or attachments. The purpose is explicit and unambiguous.

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 a 'Use this when' clause: 'You need full comment metadata... and want to filter by specific project, task, or discussion thread.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit comparative guidance.

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