comments_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explains the lifecycle statuses, what 'assigned' means ('→ agent' clicks), that they are the work queue, and the default behavior of showing unresolved comments. It doesn't fully describe return format or pagination, but for a simple list tool this is sufficient 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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, workflow, and when to use. It is front-loaded with the core function, then provides actionable details without fluff.

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 optional param, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, how to process the results, and when to check. It doesn't enumerate the exact fields returned, but the workflow guidance offsets that for an AI agent.

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 covers the parameter 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning beyond the schema by defining 'assigned' as comments the reviewer clicked '→ agent' on and explicitly stating the default behavior (unresolved = open + assigned, assigned first). This gives the agent deeper understanding of the enums.

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 the tool lists reviewer comments with lifecycle status, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by framing the list as the work queue for assigned/open comments and explicitly names comment_context and comment_resolve as follow-on actions.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: check at session start and after every validation run. It also lays out the full workflow (call comment_context, make change, comment_resolve) and indicates which comments to prioritize (assigned first), making it easy for the agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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