List review-panel comment threads

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true aligns with 'Returns.' The description adds sorting and field details. However, it says 'Returns all review-panel comment threads' while the schema's include_resolved parameter defaults to false, meaning only open threads are returned by default, overstating the tool's behavior and missing a key default filter.

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 the first sentence stating purpose and sorting, and the second enumerating returned fields and pointing to an alternative. No filler or redundant content.

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?

Without an output schema, the description provides a useful field list. It also gives context about the open project and points to the full-content tool. The gap is the 'all' vs. default-open-threads mismatch, but the schema's include_resolved description partially covers this. Overall quite complete for a read-only list operation.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'latest message preview' but does not explicitly connect it to the `full` parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies the resource ('review-panel comment threads') and scope ('in the open project'), with sorting behavior. It also distinguishes from the sibling 'read_comment_thread' by pointing to it for full content.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use read_comment_thread for full content,' providing a clear alternative. This makes it clear when to use the listing tool versus the full-content tool, offering strong guidance.

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