list_task_comments

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses important behavioral traits: server-side pagination caps responses at 20 even if limit exceeds 20, the ordering is latest-selected but returned oldest-first, and count represents total comments. It also describes the output fields, including that text is plain HTML-stripped. This is extensive and goes beyond basic expectations.

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 longer than average but every sentence provides necessary information: purpose, pagination cap, sorting behavior, count meaning, and field list. The structure is clear and efficient, with no filler content.

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?

The output schema already covers return types, so the description need not elaborate on that. It adds critical non-obvious context: pagination cap, ordering quirks, count semantics, and HTML stripping. For a simple listing tool, this is fully complete.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining the limit parameter's meaning (top recent N, but capped at 20). However, task_id's semantics are only implied through the phrase 'task's comments' and not explicitly defined, leaving a minor gap.

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's function: 'Retrieves the list of comments (mentions) of a task.' It also specifies key behaviors such as sorting and pagination, which distinguishes it from sibling comment manipulation tools (add/update/delete) and other listing tools.

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 as the read-only tool for listing task comments, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like list_my_mentions or how to decide against other comment-related tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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