List comments

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the default status of 'open', which is genuinely useful behavior context, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether replies are included in results. With annotations carrying the main burden, this is adequate but thin.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose and filter front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence shifts from listing to workflow advice, which is mildly tangential for a list operation but still compact and readable.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, no nested objects, and no output schema, so the description needn't explain return values. Purpose, scope, and the filter default are all covered; only ordering and reply-inclusion behavior are left undefined.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description merely restates the enum values and default that the schema already documents ('open (default), resolved, reopened or all'), adding no syntax or interpretation guidance beyond it.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List comments on a document') and names the filtering dimension, so it is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_comment or get_comment. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, which keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

It gives a clear context (list comments on a document, default filter open) and hints at the follow-up workflow by mentioning replying to and resolving comments. However, it never names the sibling tools reply_to_comment or resolve_comment, and it gives no when-not-to-use guidance, so the routing is only implied.

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