list_comments

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions that comments are returned 'en orden' (in order), but does not state whether this is read-only, safe to invoke, or what the ordering criterion is. No side effects, permissions, or pagination behavior are disclosed.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and ordering note, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, output schema available), so an agent can likely call it correctly. However, the description omits any usage guidance, behavioral safety context, and clarification of what 'en orden' means, leaving some important gaps despite the low complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and one required parameter, the description helps by linking task_id to 'una tarea' (a task), clarifying that the parameter selects the parent task. It does not add constraints, format details, or examples, but for a single integer parameter the semantic gap is partially bridged.

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 identifies the resource and scope: comments of a task, in order. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like list_tasks or add_comment, though it relies on the tool name for the verb rather than stating 'list' explicitly.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_comment or get_task, and no exclusions are stated. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and sibling list.

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