list_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' and 'already stored' imply a read-only operation, and the description names returned fields, but it does not explicitly state side effects, ordering, pagination, or what an empty class_name means.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then return shape, then usage guidance. Each sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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?

This is a simple read tool with an output schema available. The description covers purpose, optional filtering, returned fields, and usage before add_comment; remaining gaps around ordering, pagination, and default filter behavior are minor.

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 0%, and the only parameter, class_name, is undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by saying the list can be optionally filtered to one class, which gives the parameter clear purpose, though it does not specify matching format or the default empty behavior.

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: listing comments stored in the project, with an optional class filter. It also distinguishes the tool from add_comment by explaining that this should be used first to see existing annotations.

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 gives clear usage context by saying to use this before add_comment instead of re-deriving existing comments. It does not provide explicit when-not guidance or name alternatives beyond add_comment, but the primary routing signal is clear.

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