list_card_comments

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

There are no annotations, and the description is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, return format, or any side effects, even though the schema indicates page and per_page parameters. Thus, the description adds no behavioral insight beyond what the operation name already implies.

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 one short sentence, which is efficient, but it omits essential information about parameters and behavior. This is under-specification rather than appropriate conciseness, as evidenced by the need for additional context to correctly use the tool.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description provides no contextual details about pagination, the structure of comments, or how this tool fits with sibling comment-related tools. It is minimally adequate for a basic understanding but insufficient for reliable tool selection and invocation in varied scenarios.

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 description does not mention any of the three parameters (card_id, page, per_page). With 0% schema description coverage, there is no compensation in the description, so the agent must rely entirely on the raw schema to understand parameter meanings and defaults.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'comments on a card', clearly identifying the operation. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_card_comment and delete_card_comment by focusing on retrieval. The resource and scope are precise, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 such as get_card or list_cards. It neither mentions contexts where it is appropriate nor explicitly excludes alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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