list_comment_threads

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the default open-only filter, that results are compact summaries, that only "visible" threads are returned, and that "Deleted threads/messages are never returned." It also explains the "current-user" sentinel for user ID filters. These are meaningful behaviors beyond what a minimal read/list tool would imply.

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 efficiently structured: the core action comes first, followed by a brief domain definition, default behavior, routing to siblings, filter summary, user ID note, and the deleted-item exclusion. Every sentence adds value for a tool with 14 parameters and no annotations, with no filler or redundancy.

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 complexity (14 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides enough context for an agent to call it correctly. It explains the concept of comment threads, the open/resolved status model, the default behavior, the workflow with sibling tools, and key exclusions. Nothing critical is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level summary of filter categories ("page, node, status, author, search, sort, and pagination filters") and notes the "current-user" sentinel, but these details already exist in the schema's parameter descriptions. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 a specific verb and resource: "List visible comment threads in the open file as compact summaries." It also defines what a comment thread is (a conversation pinned to a node with messages and status), and implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_comment_thread for full replies and set_comment_thread_status for marking threads done.

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 and alternatives: "Use this first to discover relevant discussion, then call get_comment_thread for full replies." It also explains when to use set_comment_thread_status, and describes the default filter ("Lists only open threads by default"). This gives clear routing compared to sibling tools.

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