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 of disclosing behavior. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only listing operation, nor does it explain what happens with the status filter. The word "scheduled" actually creates ambiguity because the status enum includes published and failed, so the behavioral scope is unclear.

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 very short with no filler or wasted words, and the key scope "for a post" is front-loaded. However, it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence, and its ambiguity means the brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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 list tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, this description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the return format, the filtering semantics, or how the tool behaves relative to other comment tools. The agent would need to inspect sibling behavior or make risky assumptions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely maps "post" to postId and says nothing about the status parameter. It does not clarify that postId is required or what values like pending, published, and failed mean. The word "scheduled" does not match any enum value, adding confusion rather than clarity.

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 "Scheduled comments for a post" identifies a resource and scope, but it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit statement like "list comments for a post." It is ambiguous whether the tool returns only scheduled/pending comments or all comments, especially since the status enum includes published and failed. It vaguely distinguishes itself from siblings like get_comment and list_posts, but not clearly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use list_comments versus alternatives such as get_comment, retry_comment, or list_posts. The phrase "for a post" implies one use case, but the description does not state conditions, exclusions, or how the status filter should be used.

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