List Comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context: results are paginated, and returned comments include nested replies and resolution state. What it omits is whether pagination applies to nested replies too and what the default page size is.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the payload description is front-loaded ahead of the routing advice. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With a full output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description needs only to explain purpose and sequencing, which it does. The one gap is pagination mechanics for nested replies versus top-level comments, which an agent may need before paging through a large thread.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter (after, first, offset, docId, workspaceId) is documented in-schema with bounds, so the baseline of 3 applies. The word "paginated" loosely signals after/first/offset, but the description adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction rules beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List paginated comments for a document") plus the content scope: nested replies and resolution state. That scope statement alone distinguishes it from create_comment/update_comment and from unrelated list_* siblings.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this before update_comment, delete_comment, or resolve_comment when the existing comment ids are needed. It names three concrete alternatives and the condition that selects this tool over them, leaving nothing to inference.

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