list_comments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'listing conversation comments' and fails to reveal pagination, auth requirements, side effects, or any other behavioral traits, leaving the agent completely uninformed.

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 extremely brief, essentially a single phrase 'Alias for listing conversation comments.' While not a tautology, it is under-specified and lacks structure, providing minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 has 4 parameters, many sibling tools, and no annotations, this description is completely inadequate. It does not cover pagination, auth, the alias relationship, or any operational context, making it impossible for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. The agent gets no explanation of conversation_id, limit, cursor, or api_token, so parameter semantics are entirely missing.

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 states the tool lists conversation comments, providing a clear verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool list_conversation_comments; it only identifies itself as an alias, which does not fully clarify when to choose it over its sibling.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that conversation_id is required, any prerequisites, or provide any context for choosing this tool over list_conversation_comments.

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