List comments on a page

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: an empty response can mean comments are disabled, not just that there are no comments, and it points to get_site_info to resolve that ambiguity. No contradictions with the annotations 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?

Two sentences front-load the core operation and addressing scheme, then append the important empty-list caveat. There is no filler, repetition of schema content, or extraneous detail.

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 low-complexity read-only tool with only two parameters, the description covers the key behavioral edge case and the unusual addressing rule. No output schema is present, but the return concept ('comments on one page') is clear enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the schemas already document both parameters thoroughly, including path format, locale defaults, and locale patterns. The description reinforces the path-not-id nuance, but that is more of a usage hint than new parameter semantics, so it does not push the score above the baseline.

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 operation ('Returns the comments on one page') and the exact addressing scheme (path + locale, not page id). It also distinguishes this tool from sibling page tools by highlighting the unusual path-based addressing, so an agent can separate it from list_pages and get_comment without inspecting schemas.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool and explicitly excludes page-id addressing, which is important for Wiki.js. It also names get_site_info as the way to disambiguate an empty list, giving a concrete alternative for that edge case. It does not enumerate every sibling alternative, but the context is sufficient for this simple read-only tool.

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