List comments

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses ordering (newest root comment first, replies flat beneath), the meaning of parentId, and the ownership-dependent visibility of hidden comments. This adds real behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 dense sentences, with the core purpose and ordering front-loaded and the ownership distinction following naturally. Every sentence contributes either behavioral detail or usage context; there is no filler.

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 read-only list tool with strong annotations and a fully described schema, the description covers ordering, reply nesting, ownership, hidden-comment behavior, and even the follow-up action of posting a reply. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by framing `includeHidden` in terms of the maker's inbox and by explaining how the public thread is used to choose a parentId for post_comment, going slightly beyond the schema's literal descriptions.

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 names a specific resource (comments) and a specific action (list), then sharpens the scope by distinguishing the maker's inbox on owned games from the public thread on other games. It also points to the comment structure via parentId, making it easy to tell this apart from post_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?

It gives clear situational guidance: use this on your own game for the maker's inbox, and on others for the public thread, with includeHidden explicitly scoped to owned games. It relates the tool to post_comment by noting this is where you pick a parentId, though it does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it versus other sibling tools.

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