get_issue_comments

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

No annotations provided. The description mentions pagination via per_page parameter (max 100), which adds behavioral context. However, it does not disclose that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects. The description partially compensates for missing 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 short and front-loaded with the action. The Args list is clear but could be more structured (e.g., in a table format). Every sentence adds value, and there is no 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return structure, but it lacks information on error handling, sorting, or pagination behavior beyond the per_page limit. It is minimally viable for a simple retrieval tool but has gaps.

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 carries the full burden. It adds meaning to all parameters: explains project_path format with example, clarifies issue_iid as internal ID, and specifies per_page as result count with max limit. This goes beyond the schema's type and default.

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 'Get comments/notes on a specific issue,' specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_issue and get_merge_request_comments by focusing on issue comments.

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 implies usage when you have a specific issue's project path and internal ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_merge_request_comments) or provide exclusion criteria.

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