List Replies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description does add the quota cost (1 unit per page of up to 50 results), which is genuinely useful and not in the structured fields. It stops there, offering no pagination or ordering context.

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?

Only two short fragments with zero padding, and the quota note is useful. However, the leading line lacks a clear action verb, so the front-loaded content is not the tool's actual behavior.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations plus a fully documented schema cover the mechanics. What remains missing is the core statement of what the tool returns (a paginated list of replies) and how it differs from list_comments, leaving the definition only minimally viable.

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 100%, with each of the four parameters (limit, comment, my_channel, page_token) documented, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 phrase "Replies to a top-level comment" reads as a noun clause describing what a reply is, not a verb+resource statement of what the tool does. The tool name implies listing, but the description never uses a listing verb and gives no scope (top-level comment arg is the only hint). It also fails to distinguish itself from the sibling list_comments.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_comments for top-level comments or reply_to_comment for writing. The agent must infer that this is the read counterpart to reply_to_comment purely from the name.

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