List review comments

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what annotations already provide (readOnlyHint=true). It adds the filtering behavior, but does not mention side effects, permissions, or the return format. The description is consistent with the annotations.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. It front-loads the purpose and scoping in the first sentence and adds a practical tip in the second. No redundant information is present.

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 and the presence of annotations, the description covers the main purpose and parameter usage. However, it lacks information about the output format, pagination, or potential limits, which would be helpful for a complete understanding. The absence of an output schema increases the need for such 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 description adds meaningful context for two of the three parameters (ticket and includeResolved) beyond the schema definitions. It clarifies the scoping to a ticket and the filtering behavior for resolved comments. The schema has 67% coverage, so the description compensates by providing usage hints.

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 that the tool lists review comments for a project, optionally scoped to one ticket, and mentions the resolved state. It uses a specific verb and resource, which helps distinguish it from many sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar list tools like list_media_comments.

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 a usage tip about setting includeResolved:false to see only open feedback, which guides the agent on how to filter. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_media_comments or other list tools.

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