List PR comments

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

The description claims 'List all comments' but the schema includes a limit parameter defaulting to 100, making 'all' misleading without mentioning pagination. While annotations correctly indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description adds a flawed scope assertion and omits the default limit behavior.

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 two sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second specifies sorting. There is no redundant phrasing or filler, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Without an output schema, the description provides only a minimal return description ('sorted oldest-first') and fails to reconcile the limit parameter with the 'all' claim. It does not describe response structure or pagination, leaving agents to infer too much about the actual result set.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. It does not mention limit, repo, workspace, or pr_id, but the schema already handles those, giving a baseline 3.

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 specifies the action ('List'), the resource ('comments on a pull request'), and adds discriminating detail about including both general and inline comments. This distinguishes it from sibling comment-modification tools like add_pr_comment and reply_to_pr_comment.

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 makes it obvious this is for fetching comments rather than modifying them, but it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools. Since sibling names like add_pr_comment and resolve_pr_comment clearly indicate other use cases, the context is sufficient.

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