get_issue_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. It provides basic context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides crucial usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameter types, and alternative usage scenarios. However, it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., comment structure, ordering) or potential limitations, leaving some gaps for a read operation.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (project_id and issue_id as UUIDs). The description adds minimal value by repeating that parameters are UUIDs and mentioning the alternative tool for readable identifiers, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema.

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 specific action ('Get all comments') and resource ('for a specific issue'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_issue_comment (which creates comments) or get_issue_worklogs (which retrieves worklogs). It precisely defines the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 provides when to use this tool (to get comments for a specific issue) and when to use an alternative (get_issue_using_readable_identifier if you have a readable identifier instead of UUIDs). This offers clear guidance on tool selection and prerequisites.

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