List Row Discussions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to reinforce that it is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns discussions and comments, and that include_comments parameter controls comment text. However, it does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or behavior when no discussions exist. Given high annotation coverage, this is adequate but not extra.

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 well-structured. It starts with the main purpose, then lists parameters with brief explanations, and ends with a return statement. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 parameters and return type (discussions and comments). It lacks details on pagination or limits, but overall it is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It provides clear explanations for each parameter: sheet_id and row_id as targets, and include_comments optional with default true. This adds meaning beyond the schema and correctly compensates for the low coverage.

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 retrieves discussions attached to a specific row, using the verb 'retrieve' and specifying the resource 'discussions attached to a specific row in a sheet'. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_sheet_discussions (all discussions on a sheet) and create_row_discussion (create discussions).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions (e.g., when not to use it) or suggest sibling tools like list_sheet_discussions for different scopes. The usage context is only implied by the specific row targeting.

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