List Pull Request Comments Tool

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds substantial context: the unified item shape (kind, id, author, created_at, body, html_url), oldest-first ordering, and a 300-item cap per kind surfaced via truncated/truncated_kinds. The truncation disclosure is exactly the kind of behavior an agent must know to interpret results.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then adds compact structured detail about kinds and fields, ending with the truncation caveat. Every sentence carries information with no 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?

Although an output schema exists, the description usefully summarizes the item fields and the per-kind truncation contract. Combined with the schema and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 description coverage is 100%, with repo, pull_number and an owner defaulting to GITHUB_DEFAULT_ORG all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 everything said on a GitHub pull request') and enumerates the three distinct kinds of content it returns (issue_comment, review_comment, review). This clearly distinguishes it from get_pull_request_diff_tool and get_pull_request_tool among the siblings.

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 scope is clearly implied ('everything said on a pull request'), which tells the agent this is the comprehensive comment-listing tool. However, it never explicitly names when to prefer a sibling (e.g., get_pull_request_diff_tool for raw diffs) or states exclusions, so usage must be inferred.

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