Get Issue Comments

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, aligning with the 'Get' semantics. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the operation itself, such as ordering, pagination, or filtering behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is acceptable but not enriched.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and input.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly states the operation and the key input. It lacks extra guidance like handling of empty results or pagination, but the output schema likely covers the return structure, so this is not a critical gap.

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?

The input schema fully describes the only parameter (issue_id) with format guidance. The description's 'by its id' adds no new meaning, as the schema already provides the 'SOMEPROJECT-1' format. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get'), a clear resource ('comments of a Yandex Tracker issue'), and a retrieval key ('by its id'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like issue_get_changelog, issue_get_worklogs, and issue_get_attachments, which target different issue sub-resources.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: to retrieve comments for a specific issue. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer when this is the appropriate choice among the many sibling tools.

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