list_entity_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. It only states 'List comments' and gives no details about authentication, pagination, ordering, response size, or explicit confirmation of no side effects.

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 concise sentence with no filler. Every word contributes necessary scope information, and it is appropriately front-loaded.

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 the input schema and output schema present, basic invocation details are covered. However, the description gives no guidance on how this differs from list_comments or any behavioral expectations, leaving some usage context incomplete for a 4-parameter tool.

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%, so parameters (entity_type, entity_id, fields, output_format) are already well documented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond restating the entity types already in the schema.

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 action ('List'), the object ('comments'), and the scope ('project, portfolio, or goal'). This specific resource/entity-type framing distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_comments, which likely targets issue 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?

The description gives clear context by specifying the entity types (project, portfolio, goal), implying when to use this tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous.

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