paperclip_list_comments

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. 'List' implies a read-only operation scoped to a specific issue, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, error behavior, or whether the issue must exist. This is adequate for a simple list operation but lacks richer behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and the target resource, making it easy to scan and process.

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 one-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what the tool does and what input it needs. It does not specify return format or pagination, but the verb 'List' reasonably implies a collection of comments, and the tool's simplicity keeps this from being a major gap.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter issueId, with a clear description ('ID of the issue'). The tool description adds the qualifier 'specific issue', but it does not provide additional format, source, or validation details beyond what the schema already documents.

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') and resource ('comments on a specific issue'), clearly identifying the operation and its scope. It is distinct from sibling tools like paperclip_add_comment and paperclip_list_issues, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 usage is implied by the verb and resource: use this tool to retrieve comments for a given issue. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as distinguishing from paperclip_add_comment or listing all comments globally.

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