list_task_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description merely restates the tool's name ('List all comments on a task') without disclosing any behavioral traits such as ordering, pagination, return format, permissions, or edge cases. It adds no insight beyond the tool name itself.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundant phrasing. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, but it is too brief to provide helpful context beyond the bare function. Still, it is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but lacks important details. It does not describe what information is returned for each comment (e.g., author, timestamp, body), nor does it clarify behavior like sorting or empty results. Given the absence of an output schema, the description should provide more context.

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 task_id is fully described in the schema as 'The task UUID', giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't mention the parameter at all, but the schema already provides the necessary meaning.

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 'List all comments on a task' clearly states the verb (list), resource (comments), and scope (task). It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_comment and other list tools (e.g., list_time_entries) by specifying comments as the target resource.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or related tools (e.g., create_comment for adding comments). The usage is only implied by the name and description, but no explicit direction is provided.

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