listCommentCollections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool lists data but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the output format is, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information without any unnecessary words. It directly communicates the tool's purpose in a clear and structured manner, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context about the tool's behavior, output, or parameters to fully guide an AI agent, especially compared to sibling tools that might have overlapping functionalities.

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 one parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention or explain the parameter 'includeVideoList'. Since the schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but fails to do so. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is slightly higher, but the lack of any parameter explanation keeps it at an average score.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('List') and resources ('local comment collections, active search focus, and indexed comment counts'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'listCollections' or 'listChannelCatalog', which prevents a perfect score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'listCollections' or 'searchComments', nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for usage. It merely states what the tool does without indicating appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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