issue_comments_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'list issue comments' without explaining pagination, rate limits, default ordering, or the format of parameters like 'since'. The behavioral impact of parameters (e.g., threaded) is not disclosed.

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 single sentence is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the purpose but omits necessary details about parameters and behavior, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover filtering criteria, pagination, or return format, which are essential for correct invocation.

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 does not explain any of the 7 parameters. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it fails to add meaning beyond the parameter names. For example, 'since' is not described as a date filter.

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 tool lists issue comments and provides specific use cases (inspect task output, latest handoff, completion notes). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like issue_comment_add by focusing on reading rather than writing.

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 when to use (inspecting outputs, handoffs, notes) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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