fc list comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: comments are returned in chronological order, each includes the author profile, and the current user liked state is flagged. However, it does not mention pagination behavior or rate limits, which could be relevant for a list operation.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the key behavior (returns comments) and includes important details (chronological order, author profiles, liked state) without any filler. The additional controller and route source lines are concise and potentially useful for debugging or tracing.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description provides substantial behavioral context (ordering, included fields, liked state). However, it does not address pagination or potential limits, which could be important for an agent calling this tool with large feeds. The controller and route source add transparency but not call-related completeness.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (account and feed_id). The description mentions 'on a post' but does not elaborate on the feed_id parameter or account parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Returns) and resource (every comment on a post) with scope details: chronological order, author profiles attached, and current user liked state flagged. This clearly distinguishes it from fc_create_comment, fc_update_comment, and fc_delete_comment, which modify comments rather than list them.

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 implies usage (listing comments for a given feed), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like fc_get_feed or fc_list_feeds. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. An agent can infer the purpose but receives no guidance on alternatives.

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