list_comments

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses critical behavior: returns only the default first page, may truncate long threads, returns oldest-first, and describes the comment structure (id, body, user, timestamps). It explicitly warns against assuming a short list means few comments.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a brief note. It is front-loaded with the purpose and each sentence adds value (purpose, risk, ordering, comment fields). No unnecessary words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains what each comment contains (id, body, user, timestamps) and addresses truncation risk and ordering. It is fairly complete for a list tool. Missing mention of filtering or sorting, but none exist in the schema.

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% so the schema already describes the parameters. The description mentions `index` as the issue number and notes `repo` and `owner` have defaults, but adds minimal extra meaning 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 clearly states it lists comments on one issue by its `index`. The verb 'list' and resource 'comments on one issue' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_comment, update_comment, and delete_comment by focusing on listing.

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 for quick retrieval but warns of truncation. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., for full threads, use a different tool with pagination). No when-not or alternative tool is mentioned.

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