List comments

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

With readOnlyHint=true already present, the description adds value by disclosing that comments are threaded and listing exact returned fields (id, content, author, parent). It does not mention pagination or sorting, but for a simple read-only list this is sufficient.

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 compact, with the first sentence stating action and outputs, the second giving the primary use case, and a parenthetical noting the alternative. Every sentence is purposeful with no redundancy.

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 simple 1-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: return fields, threading, and how it fits with update/delete operations. It is complete for efficient selection and invocation.

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 fully describes the 'page' parameter, including two acceptable formats (UUID or path). The description does not add meaning beyond restating that comments are on a page, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool lists threaded comments on a page and specifies the return fields (id, content, author, parent). It distinguishes this tool from get_page with include_comments, which returns the same thread alongside page content.

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 description explicitly says to use this tool to find a comment's id before update_comment or delete_comment, and it notes the get_page alternative. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and differentiates from sibling tools.

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