List Comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: the operation is paginated and returns nested replies and resolution state, which clarifies the data shape. However, it does not mention default page size, sorting, or potential API quirks like offset/after interaction, so a minor gap remains.

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: the first states the function, the second gives usage guidance. No fluff, no redundancy, front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the tool is a read-only list operation with comprehensive annotations, a detailed input schema (100% coverage), and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It captures the essential purpose, the data scope (nested replies, resolution state), and when to invoke it relative to mutating comment tools. Nothing critical is missing.

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 a baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for parameters like after, first, offset, or workspaceId; it only says 'paginated' which is already encoded in the parameter descriptions. No extra parameter insight is provided.

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 clear resource ('comments for a document') and adds scope details: 'paginated', 'including nested replies and resolution state'. This distinguishes it from sibling comment mutation tools like create_comment, update_comment, delete_comment, and resolve_comment.

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 states when to use: 'Use this before update_comment, delete_comment, or resolve_comment when you need the existing comment ids.' This names specific alternatives and provides a clear usage context, fulfilling the when/when-not guidance.

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