ghl_social_get_comment_list

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

The description implies a read operation ('List comments'), but the annotation readOnlyHint is false, indicating it is not read-only. This is a contradiction. The description does not disclose any write or side effects, nor does it address authentication, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond what the annotations provide.

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: two sentences and an endpoint note. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, with no wasted words or redundant information.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fails to explain the response format, pagination metadata, or any behavioral details like permissions or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's complete behavior.

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 the description adds marginal value. It summarizes the roles of parameters like parentId, skip/limit, sortBy, originIds, and search, which helps but does not significantly extend the schema's own detailed descriptions.

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 tool lists comments for a post or thread, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes between scoping to a post or a comment thread via parentId, which differentiates it from sibling tools like ghl_social_get_post or ghl_social_create_comment.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (for listing comments scoped to a post or thread) and describes pagination, sorting, and filtering parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like ghl_social_create_comment for adding comments.

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