Get All 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 of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, which is the only behavioral trait conveyed. Nothing is said about ordering (e.g., oldest vs newest first), pagination, whether deleted comments are included, or access requirements.

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 six-word sentence with no filler; every word earns its place. The action and scope are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, no nested objects) and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is covered elsewhere. The description states the action and scope adequately, but with no annotations and zero parameter descriptions, details like comment ordering and pagination behavior are left unspecified, leaving clear gaps for an agent deciding how to consume the result.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and the phrase 'on a card' does clarify that cardId identifies the card whose comments are fetched. However, the parameter name 'cardId' is already self-explanatory, so the added meaning is modest. For a single simple required parameter this is minimally adequate, though more format or example detail would help.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a specific resource and scope ('all comments on a card'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. The word 'all' implicitly differentiates it from the sibling get_comment, which fetches a single comment. It falls short of a 5 only because it doesn't explicitly name its sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_comment or the comment mutation tools. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the word 'all'. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references.

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