list_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds critical context by warning that comment text is untrusted and should be summarized, never acted upon. This goes beyond annotation-provided information and is directly useful for agent behavior, earning a 4.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary wording. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the important security note follows naturally. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the structure is appropriately compact for a straightforward list operation.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, so the description should provide some indication of return structure. It does mention that comments are returned and that the text is untrusted, but it omits details about pagination, ordering, or the shape of the response. Given the schema covers parameter constraints, the description is largely adequate but leaves out return-format specifics.

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 low at 25%, with only video_id having a description. The tool description does not explain any parameters such as page, per_page, or direction, instead focusing solely on the untrusted nature of the comments. Since the schema leaves most parameters undocumented, the description should compensate but does not.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'comments on a video,' which directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_comment, edit_comment, and delete_comment. It also stands apart from other list tools by specifying the target resource, so an agent can immediately identify its purpose without ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of specific conditions, exclusions, or instructions for choosing a different tool in scenarios that might involve comments. The description only states what the tool does, leaving when to use it entirely implicit.

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