list_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 discloses ranking order, automatic URN extraction from URLs, filtering by min_likes, and the include_replies behavior. It does not discuss pagination, rate limits, or error cases, but covers the core behaviors an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, then gives a brief usage line, followed by a compact Args list. Every sentence adds information; there is no filler.

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 five parameters, a 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an output schema that covers return shape, the description gives all necessary parameter semantics and behavioral detail. It includes the mutual exclusivity constraint for the two post identifiers and explains each optional parameter. The only omission is explicit sibling differentiation, but that does not compromise the ability to call the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all five parameters, and it does: post_urn/post_url are described with mutual exclusivity, limit with max comments and default 100, min_likes with a semantic filter, and include_replies with its 'only top-level' behavior. This fully compensates for the bare 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 opening sentence states a specific action ('List stored comments') and object ('a post'), and specifies the ordering ('ranked by likes desc then time'). The word 'stored' distinguishes it from the sibling scrape_post_comments, which implies fetching fresh data rather than reading persisted ones.

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 clearly states the input requirements (provide either post_urn or post_url) and describes the data as 'stored comments,' giving context for when this read-style tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'stored' qualifier and the parameter guidance provide adequate usage context.

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