github_get_issue_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a read operation. It says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior (despite a per_page param), rate limits, or authentication requirements for private repositories.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than being a model of structured clarity.

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 list tool with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations it should say more about the shape of the returned comment list and pagination expectations.

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%, with repository format (owner/repo), issueNumber, and per_page all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('獲取問題的評論列表' — get an issue's comment list), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as github_get_issue, github_get_pr_comments, or github_create_issue_comment.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus github_get_issue or github_get_pr_comments, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., issue must exist, whether pagination is needed). The intended usage is only weakly implied by the name and the word '評論'.

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