List Comments

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

Annotations already mark read-only and non-destructive. The description adds platform-specific nesting behavior, comment_count usage, and fallback to /replies edge, providing transparency beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses three sentences to cover key details without redundancy, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing value.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers platform behavior, reply drilling, and use of IDs. It misses return format details, but the openWorldHint and lack of output schema make this acceptable.

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: object_id can be a post/media or comment ID, author ID doubles as DM recipient, and platform-specific defaults. This enriches beyond schema, earning 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 tool lists comments on posts or media for Facebook/Instagram, including author IDs. It distinguishes from siblings like get_comment or create_comment by specifying the scope and dual platform support.

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 context on when to use: to retrieve comments and author IDs for messaging, and to drill into replies by passing a comment ID. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling list implies alternatives for different actions.

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