create_pr_comment

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: returns markdown (not posting), patches ordered by severity, in-line suggestion blocks. No contradiction with 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?

Three concise sentences: first defines purpose, second and third compare to siblings. No wasted content; every sentence adds value.

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?

Description covers purpose, output format, and sibling differentiation. Given output schema exists and 2 required parameters, it provides sufficient context. Could mention prerequisites (e.g., PR context) but not necessary.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds minor guidance about patches being ordered by severity, but does not compensate beyond baseline for high coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool generates a per-file GitHub PR comment with in-line suggestion blocks for a11y patches, ordered by severity, returning markdown. It also explicitly differentiates from siblings 'format_pr_comment' and 'generate_pr'.

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?

Description provides explicit comparisons to two sibling tools ('vs format_pr_comment' and 'vs generate_pr'), guiding when to use this tool instead. It does not include explicit 'when not to use' beyond those comparisons, but the context is clear.

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