list_pull_request_comments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists comments, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, what types of comments are included (review comments vs. issue comments), authentication requirements, or any other behavioral nuances. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 a single, short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no irrelevant information. It is efficiently minimal without being vague about the core purpose.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the response will include, whether pagination is supported, or how comments are ordered. The ambiguity about which types of comments (e.g., review comments vs. general comments) are listed further limits completeness. The schema covers parameters, but behavioral and output context are missing.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage, describing each parameter (owner, repo, pull_number) with Spanish labels. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It does not clarify parameter formats or relationships beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Lista' (Lists) and clearly identifies the resource as 'los comentarios de un Pull Request' (comments of a Pull Request). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_pull_requests (lists PRs) and create_pull_request_comment (creates a comment), making the purpose 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?

The usage is implied by the name and description: use it to list comments on a PR. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, such as when only review comments are needed or when to use create_pull_request_comment. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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