github_issues_list_comments

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits beyond the schema. It does not mention pagination (though schema has per_page/page), permission requirements, sorting, or that this is a read operation. The minimal description fails to inform the agent of important behavior.

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 extremely concise (three words). It is front-loaded and has no redundant text. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (likely a list of comments). It also omits the filtering capabilities hinted by optional parameters (since, per_page, page). For a list-oriented tool, this lack of completeness is a 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?

Schema coverage is 100%—all 6 parameters have descriptions. The tool's description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the action (list) and resource (issue comments). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling 'github_issues_list_comments_for_repo', which also lists issue comments but at the repository level. The requirement for issue_number in the schema implies it's per-issue, but the description lacks that specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_issues_list_comments_for_repo' or 'github_pulls_list_review_comments'. The agent is given no context for decision-making.

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