list_comment_thread_authors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds meaningful behavior details: only visible messages are counted, and deleted threads/messages are never counted. It also states what data is returned. It could additionally mention read-only behavior or ordering/pagination, but the core behavioral semantics are covered.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver the purpose, output fields, usage context, and a key behavioral rule. The primary action is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place with no repetition of schema content.

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 definition covers purpose, usage context, returned fields, and the deleted-item exclusion. With no output schema, the description supplies enough return-shape information. It omits minor details like sort order or pagination, but for a simple optional-parameter listing tool the agent has what it needs to call correctly.

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%, with fileId and pageId both already explained in the input schema. The description's mention of 'open file' aligns with fileId but does not add parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('every user who has started a comment thread or written a visible message in the open file'), and the output fields. It clearly differentiates from the sibling list_comment_threads by focusing on authors rather than threads.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to resolve a person's name to a userId before filtering list_comment_threads by participantUserId or threadAuthorUserId.' This names the relevant sibling and the exact condition that selects this tool, leaving no ambiguity.

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