comment_github_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It accurately indicates a mutating action ('Adds'), but it does not explain potential side effects, authorization requirements, or that issue_number can accept pull request IDs—though this last nuance is partially covered by the phrase 'issue or pull request'.

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?

A single, clear sentence conveys the essential action and target without any fluff. Every word contributes to understanding, and the description is front-loaded with the primary verb.

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?

Despite the lack of parameter details, the tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description fully captures the core functionality. The only omission is usage context, but that is covered separately and the tool's simplicity makes the description adequate.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It clarifies that issue_number can refer to either an issue or a pull request, which is non-obvious from the bare schema. However, repo_name and comment_body are left entirely to their names, with no format or constraints explained.

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 ('Adds a comment') and clearly identifies the resource ('existing issue or pull request'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_github_issue and list_github_issues by focusing on the commenting action for both issues and PRs.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While no sibling tool directly comments, the description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving usage largely implied.

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