list_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List all comments' and does not mention ordering, pagination, depth (e.g., top-level vs. nested), permissions, or any other behavioral traits. As a read operation, it is implicitly non-destructive, but the description adds no context beyond the basic action.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently captures the core purpose and earns its place without any filler or unnecessary elaboration.

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 is simple, has an output schema, and all parameters are documented. However, the description is minimal and does not mention potential nuances such as whether comments include threaded replies, how results are ordered, or any rate limits. It is adequate but leaves some contextual gaps, particularly around behavioral details that could affect agent expectations.

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?

The input schema provides full documentation for all three parameters (issue_key, fields, output_format) with descriptions and defaults, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description itself adds no parameter-related meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the semantic load.

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 'List all comments on an issue.' clearly states the action (list), the resource (comments), and the scope (on an issue). It is distinct from sibling tools like add_comment, update_comment, and delete_comment, and also from list_entity_comments, which targets entities rather than issues.

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 does not mention that this is for issue comments specifically, nor does it reference related tools such as list_entity_comments or add_comment. The context of sibling tool names helps imply usage, but the description itself offers no exclusions or alternative directions.

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