comment_on_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool signs and broadcasts an on-chain transaction, which is critical. However, it omits details like whether the action is irreversible, requires gas fees, or returns a transaction hash.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the usage guidance. However, the second sentence mixes behavioral info with parameter requirements, which could be more structured.

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?

The tool performs an on-chain transaction with no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., transaction hash) or mention prerequisites like wallet setup. This leaves important gaps for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description merely restates the required parameters without adding extra meaning or context beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: to communicate findings, ask questions, or provide status updates on an issue. It distinguishes from sibling tools like comment_on_pull_request and update_issue.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context and lists required parameters. References sibling tools (get_issue, update_issue) but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools like comment_on_pull_request.

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