Get comments

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds substantial extra behavioral context: Jira's default ordering differs, bodies are flattened to plain text, authors are reduced to accountId + displayName, and one page is returned per call. It also warns that comment text is untrusted third-party data, which is valuable beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and key behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place: ordering, rendering, authors, pagination, and the injection safety note are all packed in without redundancy.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description tells the agent what the response contains (comments with reduced authors, data.partial, data.nextStartAt) and how to handle pagination and rendering. Combined with the rich input schema and annotations, this is complete enough to call the tool correctly.

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 already covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the default orderBy behavior, the practical difference between text and markdown, and how to continue pagination using startAt and data.nextStartAt.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource, 'List the comments on an issue,' and adds discriminating details about ordering, body rendering, and pagination. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_get_changelog or jira_get_worklogs.

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?

It gives clear guidance on default ordering, how to resume pagination with startAt/data.nextStartAt, and when to use markdown vs text format. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use this tool, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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