get-task-comment-list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so comprehensively. It explains URL pattern recognition for extracting IDs, emphasizes that both IDs are REQUIRED, details pagination behavior (default page size, maximum, how to get additional pages), describes sorting options with defaults, and notes the filtered response format. This goes well beyond basic functionality disclosure.

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 well-structured with clear sections (URL Pattern Recognition, IMPORTANT, Pagination, Sorting, Note, Examples, Returns, Use case) and front-loads the core purpose. While comprehensive, some sections could be more concise - for example, the URL pattern explanation is quite detailed. Overall, most sentences earn their place by adding valuable 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, pagination, sorting, URL parsing) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description provides complete context. It explains behavioral aspects, provides practical examples, documents the return structure in detail, and gives clear usage guidance. This fully compensates for the lack of structured metadata.

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 the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by emphasizing that both projectId and taskId are REQUIRED (though the schema's required array already indicates this) and provides practical examples with all parameters. However, it doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose with specific verb ('Get list of comments') and resource ('on a specific Dooray task'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get-task' (which fetches task details) and 'create-task-comment' (which creates new comments). It explains what comments are ('discussions, updates, or notes added by team members'), providing context beyond just the name.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to view discussion history, progress updates, or notes on a task'), but doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives. While it distinguishes from siblings by function, it lacks explicit guidance like 'use get-task for task details instead of comments'.

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