listPRComments

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

No annotations are present, and the description carries the full burden. It usefully exposes the underlying filtering behavior (NIP-22/kind 1111 and root E tag matching), but it does not mention relay behavior, pagination, ordering, or whether comments are fetched live or from cache.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler. The technical qualifiers earn their place and are front-loaded, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 straightforward read-only list tool, the core operation is clear, but the lack of annotations, no output schema, minimal parameter docs, and no sibling differentiation leave an agent to guess details like relay defaults and result shape.

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 only 33%: prId is described, but limit and relays are not. The description adds meaning by clarifying that prId is the root E tag, but it does not compensate for the undocumented optional parameters beyond what their names imply.

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 uses a precise verb ('List'), resource ('NIP-22 comments kind 1111'), and scope ('on a Nostr pull request'). The parenthetical 'root E tag = PR id' gives an exact identification rule, so the tool is clearly distinguishable from sibling listIssueComments.

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 intended context is clear: use this to retrieve PR comments. However, it never states when not to use it or points to the sibling listIssueComments as the alternative for issue comments, leaving usage routing to inference.

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