list_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List comments on a card,' without hinting at any side effects, return format, ordering, pagination, or permissions. While it implies a read-only operation, that is not explicit, and there is no additional behavioral context.

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 sentence with zero waste, and it places the core verb and resource upfront. For a very simple list operation, this length is acceptable and appropriately sized, though it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is minimally adequate but lacks specifics like the return shape, whether all comments are returned, or how to handle pagination. Since there is no output schema or annotations, the description could have clarified the expected result, making it slightly incomplete for a fully informed agent call.

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 input schema provides a 100% description coverage for the single parameter card_id (described simply as 'Card ID'), so the schema already explains the parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 and resource: 'List comments on a card.' It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling list tools like list_cards or list_tags, since it targets comments scoped to a card. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions. Although the sibling tools are many, the description doesn't reference any alternative or explain when to prefer it over similar list operations. This leaves the agent to infer usage purely from the name and context.

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