comments_list

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the description's remaining burden is lighter. It adds genuine value by disclosing output ordering (each root followed by its replies) and that resolved state and location are included, but says nothing about pagination behavior or the ~8,000-byte cap noted only in the schema.

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?

A single dense sentence with the ordering semantics front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause (thread order, resolved state, location) carries information.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, in what order, and with what attributes. It stops short of describing pagination continuation, though the cursor parameter in the schema partly compensates.

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 100%, so all five parameters (doc, limit, author, cursor, resolved) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list comments) and adds meaningful scope detail: thread order, resolved state, and location. It is clearly a comments reader, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like revisions_list or history_list beyond the 'comments' noun.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The presence of filter parameters implies a filtered listing, but the description never tells the agent when this tool is the right choice over related list tools.

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