list_report_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates the access requirement ('when your token has access'), implies a read-only list operation, and explains the raw parameter's effect of returning raw JSON instead of a readable summary. This is solid for a simple read-only tool, though it does not detail error behavior or pagination.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clean Args block for parameter explanations. Every sentence contributes useful information 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?

For a two-parameter read-only list tool with an existing output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, access condition, and parameter semantics. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 meaningfully explains both parameters beyond the schema: report_id is 'the numeric report ID' and raw controls whether output is raw JSON versus a readable summary. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this parameter documentation fully compensates.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List comments/messages for a vulnerability report.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like list_reports or get_report, which cover different resources.

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 context is clear: use this tool to retrieve comments/messages attached to a specific vulnerability report, identified by report_id. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but there is no sibling tool with a similar comment-listing purpose, so the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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