listIssueComments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that nothing is written back to GitHub and that behavior branches on the id format, but it says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination via limit, or how relays affect results. One important trait is covered; the rest of the behavioral profile is missing.

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 short sentences with the core resource statement front-loaded and the id-format rules following. 'Same as the website' is loose filler, but nothing else is padded.

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 5-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the id-resolution branching reasonably but leaves limit and relays semantics and the shape of returned comments unaddressed. It is adequate to start a call but not complete for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 60%, and the description largely restates what the schema already documents about issueId, ownerPubkey and repoId (the schema itself notes 'Required with issue-N or a number'). It adds the '64-character' specificity for Nostr ids, but limit and relays — both undocumented in the schema — get no explanation in the description either.

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 identifies the resource (comments on an issue) and the two resolution modes, which distinguishes it from write siblings like createIssueComment. However, it never uses an explicit retrieval verb such as 'list' or 'fetch' — 'Comments on an issue' reads more like a noun phrase, so the action is inferred from the tool name rather than the prose.

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?

It gives conditional context: a 64-character Nostr id returns Nostr comments, while issue-N or a bare number requires ownerPubkey and repoId and returns forge comments. The closing line 'Nothing is posted back to GitHub' clarifies the read-only use case. It stops short of naming the write alternative (createIssueComment) or stating exclusions.

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