List pull request comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral filter ('non-deleted') and scopes (inline code comments and replies), which adds value. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, or potential rate limits, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, and every word adds value. There is no wasted text or repetition of schema details.

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 simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the core behavior and key filtering. It could benefit from mentioning pagination or response characteristics, but the current level is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and scope.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters including fallback behavior for repoSlug and workspace. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond clarifying the resource context, so the baseline 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Lists') and clearly identifies the resource ('comments on a pull request') including scope ('inline code comments and replies'). It distinguishes from siblings like bb_get_pull_request_comment (singular) and bb_list_pull_requests (which lists PRs, not comments).

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 usage for retrieving all comments on a PR but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like bb_get_pull_request_comment or how it relates to create/update/delete comment tools. Sibling names provide some context, but no direct when/when-not guidance is given.

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