list_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load. It discloses the return fields (id, parentId, nodeId, etc.) and ordering, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. It lacks details on pagination behavior beyond the schema, but the included information is sufficient.

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, all substantive. The first sentence introduces the action and ordering. The second lists key return fields. The third gives actionable parameter advice. No fluff 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 has 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, return structure, ordering, and parameter usage. It omits error behavior and pagination details, but the schema covers limit/offset. Overall, it is sufficient for a listing 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that nodeId 'fetches only the thread pinned to one node,' reinforcing the schema description and providing practical usage context. Other parameters are not elaborated, but the addition warrants a slight bump.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('comments on a diagram') and specifies ordering ('oldest first'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_comment (which creates) and others that deal with diagrams or decks. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly advises 'Use nodeId to fetch only the thread pinned to one node,' guiding when to apply that filter. It does not provide explicit contraindications or alternatives, but the advice is clear enough for effective use.

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