wealthbox.comments.list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List comments' and the query params, but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, how pagination behaves, what default page size is, or what happens when resource_id is given without resource_type. No significant behavioral traits beyond the basic listing action are revealed.

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 very concise, with the main action front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence lists query parameters without superfluous text. No filler or redundancy, making it appropriately sized. It could be slightly improved with examples or formatting, but it remains clear and to the point.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks critical context such as return format, pagination defaults, acceptable resource_type values, and any system-wide behavior like whether all comments are included by default. For a list operation with optional filters, more context is needed for reliable use.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It enumerates the parameter names (resource_id, resource_type, etc.), but these names already exist in the schema and the description adds no extra semantics. It does not explain valid resource_type values, date formats for updated_since/updated_before, or how filtering interacts with pagination. Thus, it only marginally helps beyond the schema.

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 lists comments and optionally filters by resource. It is specific about the resource (comments) and distinguishes from sibling list tools for other resources. However, it doesn't explicitly scope whether it lists all comments globally or within a workspace, which leaves slight ambiguity.

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 implies usage for listing comments and mentions optional resource filtering, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like notes.list or tasks.list. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, so the usage context is implied rather than clearly stated.

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