get_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. 'Get' implies a read, but the description does not confirm read-only safety, describe ordering of results, or explain what happens when there are more comments than max_results (pagination/truncation).

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a compact per-parameter block. Slightly list-like but no wasted prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and both parameters are covered. However, for a list-style tool with a max_results cap, the absence of any pagination/ordering note leaves an operational 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does document both parameters: issue_key with a concrete format example ('KAN-123') and max_results with its default (50). It stops short of explaining pagination or how max_results interacts with the total set.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get comments on an issue'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling add_comment (write) and get_issue (issue body). It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the read/comment scope is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives such as add_comment or get_issue. The description gives no context about prerequisites, permissions, or when fetching comments is appropriate.

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