list_comment_threads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('List') and adds the conditional input constraint, but does not disclose auth requirements, pagination, return format, or behavior when both/neither fileId/teamId are provided.

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 a single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The parenthetical adds the key usage constraint without waste.

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?

For a listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally sufficient but incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, pagination, or edge cases like both parameters provided, which an agent would need for reliable invocation.

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?

Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates the fileId/teamId conditionality already present in the schema and does not add new meaning for shareId.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'comment threads' with clear scope ('in a file or team'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_comment_thread (singular) and create_comment_thread by focusing on listing all 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?

The instruction 'provide either fileId or teamId' gives clear context on required inputs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_comment_thread for single threads or get_comments for comments, nor any when-not-to-use guidance.

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