Comment Thread List

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: it returns the whole thread with replies, and every row carries its own pid for tree-building. However, it says nothing about permissions/auth, scope limits, or ordering/pagination, leaving the behavioral profile incomplete.

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 useful content ('returns the whole thread, replies included' and 'each row carries its own pid') is front-loaded, but half the text is an anecdote about a rejected JSON:API filter that does not help an agent invoke the tool. That history does not earn its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format needn't be restated, and the description adds the thread/pid semantics. But with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, key invocation details are missing, so it is only adequate for a 3-parameter list tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters, and it does not. 'For an entity' only loosely gestures at entity_type/entity_id, and field_name (default 'comment') is never explained; the only field discussed, pid, is a return value, not a parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb + resource + scope: 'List comment thread for an entity.' This separates it from the broader comment_list sibling by the thread-scoping, though the distinction is implied rather than stated. An agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus comment_list or the other comment tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The historical narrative explains why the tool behaves as it does but not when a caller should reach for it.

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