list_comment_replies

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 only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (despite having page/limit params), whether replies are returned recursively or at a single level, or any response format details. This lack of added context makes it insufficiently transparent.

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 sentence containing only the essential information. It is efficiently worded and front-loaded, with no unnecessary wording or repetition.

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 moderate complexity with 5 parameters and no output schema, and the description provides only a minimal purpose statement. While the schema covers parameter semantics, the description omits contextual details about response shape, recursion behavior, or when the optional changeRequestId might be needed. It is minimally viable but lacks depth.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds little beyond what the schema says; 'a specific comment' simply reinforces the commentId parameter meaning. It does not provide extra semantic value, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List replies to a specific comment' clearly states the verb (List), the resource (replies), and the specific scope (a specific comment). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'list_comments' which likely lists top-level comments, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the use case—when you need replies to a particular comment—but offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like 'list_comments', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but not fully explicit.

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