list_document_commentsFetch comments from a Google Document, optionally capping the number returned to manage large threads.
List all comments from a Google Document (optional max_comments to limit results).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | Yes | ||
| max_comments | No | ||
| user_google_email | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.28.0Input schema / properties / max_comments / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / max_comments / typeAdded value: +"integer"v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful behavioral context that comments are listed in full by default and can be limited with max_comments, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, or authorization requirements.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with a useful parenthetical. There is no filler, repetition of schema fields, or unnecessary detail.
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 listing tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, with zero schema descriptions and a required user_google_email that is not mentioned at all, the description is not fully self-contained and relies on an inferred convention.
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 compensate for the schema's silence. It clarifies max_comments ('to limit results') and implicitly ties document_id to the Google Document, but it completely leaves the required user_google_email parameter unexplained. This is a significant gap for a required parameter.
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 ('List') and resource ('all comments from a Google Document'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'manage_document_comment' and from comment-listing tools for other products.
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 conveys this is the tool for retrieving comments rather than creating or modifying them. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for a read-only listing task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.