getPullRequestComments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the since/before filtering behavior, which is useful context beyond the schema. It doesn't disclose pagination, ordering, or whether inline vs review comments are included, but the annotations carry the main behavioral burden.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the filter capability is mentioned second. It earns its place without redundancy.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, it doesn't mention whether the result includes only review comments or also inline comments, nor does it describe pagination or ordering. Given the sibling set includes getPullRequestActivity and getPullRequestDiff, a bit more context on what 'discussion comments' excludes would help.

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 five parameters. The description adds the notion of 'discussion comments' and 'since/before filters', which slightly clarifies the semantics, but it doesn't add detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('discussion comments on a pull request'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like addPullRequestComment or getPullRequestDiff. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the resource is specific enough that an agent can tell it apart from the other pull request tools.

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 context: it is for listing discussion comments on a PR, and the since/before filters suggest time-bounded queries. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like getPullRequestActivity or getPullRequestDiff, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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