tokportal_list_comment_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover safety. The description adds specific behavioral details beyond annotations: the meaning of execution_blocked and execution_block_reason, and that reads remain available even when execution is paused. This is valuable context not available in the schema or annotations, enhancing transparency without contradicting them.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('List comment tasks') followed by a specific, non-redundant detail about the execution_blocked fields. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition. It efficiently conveys the core function and a key operational nuance.

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?

The description covers the core operation and a notable edge case (paused tasks), but it omits any mention of return structure or pagination behavior (though pagination is implied via page/per_page in the schema). Since there is no output schema, the agent might benefit from a note about response format, but for a list operation with well-documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It does not fully compensate for the absence of output schema details.

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 has 100% description coverage for all four parameters (page, status, per_page, saved_account_id), so the description is not required to explain them. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given high coverage. No additional meaning is contributed, so a 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 clearly states 'List comment tasks' and specifies it lists 'owned comment tasks', distinguishing it from related tools like tokportal_get_comment_task (single task) and create/delete/approve tasks. The phrase 'Lists owned comment tasks' makes the scope explicit, providing a precise verb+resource+scope definition.

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 provides context about paused tasks ('execution_blocked and execution_block_reason identify tasks paused...') and clarifies that reads remain available, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_comment_task or list_comment_task_verifications. Usage is implied by being a list operation, but no exclusions or 'use when' guidance is given.

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