comment_list

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds non-obvious behavioral detail beyond those annotations: results are chronological, soft-deleted comments are hidden by default, and passing include_deleted reveals them along with their removal reason. This materially improves the agent's understanding without contradicting 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 first sentence states the action, resource, and ordering; the second explains the conditional flag. Every clause earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only list tool with two simple parameters, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what is listed, the ordering, the default filtering behavior, and the purpose of the optional parameter. There are no critical gaps that would prevent 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that include_deleted surfaces removed comments 'with their removal reason' and by clarifying the chronological ordering, which gives the agent a better sense of what the output will be. This goes slightly beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('comments on a task'), and adds 'chronological order' to define the scope and output semantics. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling comment tools like comment_add, comment_delete, and comment_restore by its read-oriented action and the explicit reference to comment_delete.

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 establishes the core use case: retrieving comments for a task. It also gives concrete guidance on the include_deleted parameter, explicitly stating that removed comments are hidden by default and explaining when to set the flag. This is sufficient guidance given that no alternative comment-listing sibling exists.

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