Create Pull Request Comment

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that filePath auto-prepends '/', that filePath/line/status are ignored when threadId is set, and the default status is 'active'. This covers key behavioral nuances beyond schema. Could add mutation warnings or required permissions, but the disclosed behavior is solid.

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?

Two concise sentences covering purpose, dual modes, parameter interactions, and default override behavior. Zero wasted words, front-loaded with the core verb+object. Very efficient.

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 tool with dual modes (create vs reply) and parameter interdependencies, the description adequately covers mode selection and exclusion rules. It also notes default organization/project/repository inheritance from az_pr_show, aiding cross-tool understanding. Missing: output/return value description, but no output schema exists and the tool's return format is likely obvious. Mutation safety warnings absent but not critical given context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about the relationship between filePath/line/status and threadId (that they're ignored when replying), which goes slightly beyond schema. However, it doesn't add syntactic detail beyond what's already in the schema 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 two distinct behaviors: create a new thread (with optional file path/line anchoring) or reply to an existing thread (given threadId). It uses specific verbs (留言/建立/回覆) and differentiates the two primary modes 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 explicitly states when to use each mode: '未指定 threadId 時建立新的討論串' vs '指定 threadId 時回覆該討論串', and clearly documents behavioral exclusion ('此時忽略 filePath/line/status'). This is explicit when/alternatives guidance.

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