add_pr_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'adds' a comment, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether comments are editable/deletable, rate limits, or error conditions. The mention of markdown support is useful, but overall behavioral context is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by a brief feature note, then detailed parameter explanations, and ends with return info. Every sentence earns its place, though the 'Returns' line is vague ('Created comment info') and could be slightly more informative.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is partially complete. It thoroughly documents parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects) and output details. It's adequate for basic use but leaves gaps for robust agent operation.

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 description excels in parameter semantics. With 0% schema description coverage, it fully compensates by detailing all 5 parameters in the 'Args' section, explaining their purposes, optionality, and interdependencies (e.g., 'line' requires 'file_path'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, making parameter usage clear and actionable.

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 tool's purpose: 'Add a comment to a pull request' with the additional detail that it can add 'general comments or inline comments on specific lines.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_pr_comments' or 'request_changes_pr,' which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions the tool can add general or inline comments, but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'request_changes_pr' or 'approve_pr.' There's no mention of prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with little contextual direction.

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