List comments

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it adds meaningful behavior: 'Does not mark anything read,' returns 'lightweight untrusted summaries,' and explains pagination with version, cursor, and hasMore. It also discloses access requirements for aggregate mode. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Five dense sentences with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct behavioral, pagination, or usage information. It is well-structured for an agent to parse quickly.

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 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, defaults, access constraints, pagination loop, return shape, and side effects. Minor gaps remain around filter parameters and the exact meaning of 'untrusted summaries,' but the core invocation path is well specified.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It explains aggregate, all_versions, cursor, version defaults, and share context, but leaves q, status, participated, and limit semantics largely to schema inference or the parameter names.

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 opens with 'Read feedback before revising an existing artifact,' giving a clear verb, resource, and use case. It also distinguishes itself from comment_context by saying 'Use comment_context before editing,' though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling comment_read.

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: defaults to current version/main discussion or the presented share's version/discussion, and explains that aggregate requires management access while all_versions requires aggregate. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming alternatives like comment_read.

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