comment_on_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states that a comment is added, but does not mention authentication requirements, whether comments can be edited, or any side effects. The write nature is implied but not detailed.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but overly terse. It could benefit from additional structure or details without becoming verbose.

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 the tool has an output schema and no annotations, the description should cover what the return value represents (e.g., the created comment object) and any error conditions. It does not, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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?

The description offers no information about any of the four parameters (owner, repo, number, body). The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate, but it fails to add any semantic meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 action ('Add a comment') and the resource ('issue or pull request'), providing a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'create_issue' by focusing on commenting rather than creation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_pull_request' or 'list_issues'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditional usage notes.

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