list_comments

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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: results are ordered oldest first and each comment includes author and @mentions. It does not cover pagination or rate limits, but the read-only safety profile is already covered by annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the action/resource, ordering, returned content, and required parameters are all front-loaded. Every phrase contributes useful information.

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 simple read-only list operation with a readOnly annotation and schema-defined pagination defaults, the description is largely complete: it gives prerequisites and outlines return content. An output schema is absent, so a fuller field list (e.g., comment id or timestamp) would make it fully self-sufficient, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema documents page and limit, while the description clarifies the otherwise undocumented required parameters by naming projectId and itemId and pointing to query_items for obtaining itemId. This adds source semantics for the key required parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 the comments ... on an item'), specifies ordering ('oldest first'), and notes returned content (author, @mentions). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling comment tools like add_comment, update_comment, and delete_comment.

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?

It gives clear usage context: the tool needs projectId and itemId, and itemId should be obtained from query_items. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or direct comparison with comment-writing siblings, but the read/list framing makes the intended use obvious.

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