List journal entry comments

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false) already carry the safety profile, and the description aligns with them. The description adds no extra behavioral color beyond the annotations (e.g., no mention of pagination, empty results, or return shape), but it does not contradict them either. Adequate given annotations cover the essentials.

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?

A single sentence, minimally expressed, with zero wasted words and the core action front-loaded. There is nothing in the description that should be cut, and for a tool this simple, more prose would be a liability.

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 tool this simple — one required param, full annotation coverage, no output schema and no nested objects — nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly. It could potentially note list semantics or ordering, but the tool's simplicity makes the description effectively 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?

With 100% schema description coverage and a single self-explanatory path parameter (journalEntryId), the schema carries all the parameter documentation burden. The description adds nothing about parameters, but nothing is missing either — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Lists comments on a journal entry'), and the tool name contrasts with sibling get_* variants. It reads clearly and unambiguously, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similarly-named siblings like bokio_get_journal_entry_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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives — for example, when to prefer this over bokio_list_journal_entries or bokio_get_journal_entry_comment. There is no when/when-not, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The triviality of the tool mitigates the gap, but no usage guidance is provided.

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