list_comments

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 states the action and scope, but does not disclose whether the response includes only top-level comments or also replies, nor mention pagination details (though page/limit params are in schema). For a simple list tool, this is adequate but leaves some behavioral ambiguity. There is no contradiction with annotations since none exist.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and target. It wastes no words and fully captures the tool's purpose. This is ideal for quick agent parsing.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not need to detail return values, but it also fails to mention response shape or any behavioral nuances. However, given the low complexity of a list operation and the clear scope, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks guidance on filtering, ordering, or whether replies are included, which could be important for an agent.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with each parameter described. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, merely restating that comments can be on a space or change request, which is already conveyed by the presence of spaceId and changeRequestId. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline 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 clearly states the tool lists comments, specifying the scope as 'GitBook space or change request.' This distinguishes it from siblings like post_comment, update_comment, and list_comment_replies, which handle creation, modification, or replies respectively. The verb 'list' is specific and the resource is 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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: to list comments on a space or change request. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear enough that an agent can infer it is the primary listing tool for top-level comments. Sibling tools like list_comment_replies indicate a separate purpose, aiding differentiation.

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