Read a discussion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: pagination flow, the untrusted-data warning, and confirmation it does not mark messages read. These details go beyond what annotations provide, giving the agent full awareness of side effects and data handling.

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 compact and well-ordered: purpose first, then pagination instructions, then security note, then side-effect clarification. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy, and the most critical usage detail (never assume first page complete) is highlighted.

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 (pagination, untrusted data) and lack of output schema, the description covers essential operational details: what is returned, how to paginate, and a safety warning. It does not describe the exact response structure or error scenarios, but these are less critical for a read-only tool with clear pagination.

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 coverage is 50% with slug, tenant_id, and share_token described. The description adds meaning for cursor and limit by explaining pagination behavior, but thread_id remains undescribed in both schema and description. The description partially compensates but does not fully cover all parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('comment thread'), listing included elements (authors, timestamps, anchor, permissions). It distinguishes from siblings like artifact_site_comments_list by focusing on a single thread's message pages rather than listing threads.

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?

Provides explicit pagination usage instructions (follow nextCursor until null, never assume first page complete) and notes it does not mark messages read. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for choosing this over siblings, relying on the clear purpose to imply usage.

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