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. The description adds value by noting that reads remain available when execution is paused and that specific fields indicate paused status, providing behavioral context beyond what annotations supply. No contradictions exist.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence ('List comment tasks') is slightly redundant given the tool name and title, but the second sentence adds valuable context about paused tasks and read availability. Overall efficient with minimal waste.

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 no output schema, the description could clarify the response structure (e.g., paginated list with key fields). It mentions two response fields but omits others like total counts or sort order. Schema covers parameters well, but for a list tool with 100% schema coverage, the description provides adequate but not comprehensive context.

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% for all four parameters (page, status, per_page, saved_account_id), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, mentioning only response fields (execution_blocked, execution_block_reason) rather than parameter semantics.

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 'List comment tasks. Lists owned comment tasks,' clearly identifying the verb (list) and resource (owned comment tasks). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like tokportal_get_comment_task or tokportal_delete_comment_task, which could cause confusion for an agent choosing among related tools.

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 explains that execution_blocked and execution_block_reason identify paused tasks and that reads remain available despite pauses, providing helpful context. But it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., fetching a single task vs. listing), and no when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are given.

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