list_contributor_network_comments

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: soft-deleted comments remain for thread continuity with null body/author.displayName. This is valuable beyond the schema, as no annotations are provided. However, it does not mention other behaviors like pagination or rate limits.

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 concise, using two sentences to convey purpose, ordering, scope, and soft-delete behavior. No unnecessary 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?

The description covers purpose, ordering, and a notable behavior, but lacks explanation of pagination parameters (limit, cursor) and does not describe the output structure. For a list tool, this leaves gaps in understanding.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate, but it only implicitly explains 'item_id' as the item. The 'limit' and 'cursor' parameters for pagination are not mentioned or described, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 action (list comments), the resource (on an item), and the ordering (oldest first). It distinguishes from siblings like create_contributor_network_comment and delete_contributor_network_comment.

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 mentions the required scope (contributor-network.read) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to list versus create or delete comments.

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