phabricator_revision_inline_search

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

With only readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the description carries useful extra load: it discloses that results include both published comments and your own unpublished drafts, that ordering is newest first, and that the differential.inline.* Conduit extension must be enabled — a real prerequisite not present in any structured field.

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 short sentences with zero redundancy: the returned field set comes first, then the result scope and ordering, then the environmental prerequisite. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must characterize the return value — and it does so by listing the key inline-comment fields, the inclusion of drafts, and the ordering. The only gap is that pagination behavior (the after/before cursors) is left entirely to the schema, which is a minor omission for a list endpoint.

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%, so revisionID (including the 'D123' form), limit, and the after/before cursors are already fully documented upstream. The description adds no parameter-level detail and does not mention pagination at all, so it earns the baseline rather than more.

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 verb and resource (list inline comments on a Differential revision) and enumerates the payload fields (side/isNewFile, line range, character range, suggested edit, Done state), which cleanly separates it from the sibling mutation tools inline_comment, inline_publish and inline_done.

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 read-only intent is implied by 'List' and the sibling names make the create/publish/done alternatives inferable, but the description never explicitly states when to reach for this tool versus phabricator_revision_inline_comment or phabricator_revision_inline_done, nor does it give any exclusions or prerequisites for calling it beyond the extension requirement.

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