listComments

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the chronological cutoff semantics: 'a comment is visible on version V if its origin version is V or any earlier version.' This adds important behavioral context beyond a simple fetch.

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 concise sentences plus a usage sentence. Every sentence adds value, and the key information (verb, resource, scope, semantics) is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 could explain the return format, but the visibility semantics are well-covered. For a simple list fetch, it is mostly complete. Minor gap: no mention of pagination or structure of comments, but not critical.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to versionId by explaining the chronological cutoff semantics, which goes beyond the schema description. It does not add much for moduleId, but the incremental value justifies a 4.

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 verb 'fetch' and resource 'comments' with the specific context of a DesignPin module and version. It is specific and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does, distinguishing it from siblings like createShareLink and uploadVersion.

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 explicitly mentions a use case: 'fetching reviewer feedback to incorporate into design revisions.' However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or compare with alternatives, which would elevate it to a 5.

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