List Conversations

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 states the tool lists comment threads with messages and thread IDs, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it's paginated, rate-limited, requires authentication, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 core action ('List all comment threads on a card') and adds necessary detail ('with messages and thread IDs'). There is no wasted text, and it directly communicates the tool's function 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?

Given the complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., format of listed threads), error handling, or behavioral constraints. For a tool with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'card_id' parameter fully documented as a 'Full 36-char UUID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or context for where to obtain the card_id. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all comment threads on a card'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_cards' or 'list_activity' by focusing on comment threads per card. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'reply_comment' or 'close_comment', which are related but not direct alternatives, keeping it from 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid card_id), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'list_activity' (which might include comments) or 'get_card' (which might have comment data). This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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