list-issue-comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states it's a list operation (implied read-only), but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it returns all comments at once or paginates, what format comments are in (e.g., text, timestamps, authors), error conditions (e.g., invalid IDs), or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with issue data.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all comments') and target ('on a specific issue'). There's zero wasted text, making it easy to parse quickly. It appropriately sized for a straightforward list tool.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with two required parameters. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, error handling), output format, and usage context. While the purpose is clear, the agent would struggle to use this effectively without guessing about its behavior or relying on external knowledge.

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 both parameters ('project_id', 'issue_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying these are required to identify the issue. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding (e.g., explaining ID formats or relationships).

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all comments on a specific issue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get-issue-comment' (singular) and 'create-issue-comment', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list operations like 'list-issues' or 'list-issue-activities' beyond the resource name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing valid project/issue IDs), compare with similar tools like 'get-issue-comment' for single comments, or indicate any constraints (e.g., permissions, pagination). The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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