comment_report

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and discloses important behavior like dropping resolved threads when include_resolved=False and reporting the excluded count. This goes beyond the schema and gives an agent confidence about side effects.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the core deliverable, enumerates return fields, gives the use case, documents the key parameter, and ends with the safety-relevant 'Read-only' note. There is no filler.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema and the existence of an output schema, this description is complete enough for selection and invocation. It covers what the call returns, how the optional parameter changes results, and the read-only guarantee.

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 description adds real meaning for include_resolved, explaining the dropout behavior and the excluded count reporting. However, file_path, the only required parameter, is not described at all, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the required parameter's meaning is left purely to inference from its name.

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 identifies a specific deliverable: a full reviewer matrix of comment threads with author, replies, resolved flags, and locators. It distinguishes itself from the simpler get_comments sibling by emphasizing the aggregated summary and one-call design.

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 gives a clear target use case: processing committee feedback without reading comments piecemeal. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the stated intent is strong enough for an agent to select this over more granular comment tools.

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