List Issue Comments Tool

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses result ordering (oldest first) and the precise content boundary on PRs (conversation comments only, excluding diff comments and reviews), which the annotations do not convey. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or result shape, though the output schema and page/per_page params partly cover that.

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, each doing distinct work: scope and ordering, the plain-issue case, and the PR caveat. The routing information is front-loaded with zero filler.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and clear sibling routing, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing. Pagination and return shape are handled by structured fields rather than the description.

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 repo, owner, issue_number, page and per_page are all documented in the schema already. The description adds only the implicit point that issue_number accepts a PR number, which the schema itself states. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the comments on a GitHub issue or pull request conversation') plus the ordering ('oldest first'). It explicitly contrasts itself with list_pull_request_comments_tool, so an agent can distinguish the two without inspecting either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: use this for plain issues, because list_pull_request_comments_tool does not handle them. It also states the when-not caveat for pull requests — diff comments and reviews must come from the sibling tool — leaving nothing to inference.

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