get_pull_request_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral details like 'system vs human' threads and 'Resolved org-wide' for repoId lookup. However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as output format, pagination, or any side effects, keeping it at a mid-level.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every phrase adds value, with no redundant information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should clarify what the tool returns. It only says 'Get PR threads' without describing the structure of a thread or comment, leaving a significant gap for the agent.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description's note about repoId ('may be a GUID or a repository name') essentially repeats the schema description, adding minimal extra meaning beyond the structured data.

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: 'Get PR threads (system vs human).' The verb 'Get' and resource 'PR threads' are specific, and the 'system vs human' distinction helps differentiate it from sibling comment-related tools.

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 clear context for use by specifying it retrieves PR threads and notes that repoId can be a GUID or name. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, which would push it to a 5.

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