list-comment-threads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds one useful behavioral detail (quota cost per call) and 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose return behavior, pagination semantics, or any implicit constraints such as requiring exactly one of videoId or channelId.

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 communicates the core action and quota impact efficiently.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, and the description is quite minimal. It omits the practical requirement that exactly one of videoId or channelId should be provided (though not enforced by the schema), and it does not describe the response structure or pagination behavior. Still, for a simple read-only list tool, the purpose is adequately covered.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds little beyond stating the resource scope ('video or channel'), which aligns with the videoId and channelId parameters but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('top-level comment threads for a video or channel'), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling list-comments (which likely handles replies) and other tools. It states exactly what scope is covered.

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 clearly states the applicable contexts ('for a video or channel') and mentions the quota cost, providing useful usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is sufficiently clear for an agent to select this over similar listing tools.

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