Get Issue Comments

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: results are paginated, the response includes next_cursor, and callers must loop by passing next_cursor back as cursor until null. This goes beyond the static annotation and clarifies the expected interaction pattern.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the pagination instruction is the only additional sentence, earning its place.

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?

Combined with a fully described input schema, an output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description provides everything needed to correctly invoke and paginate through comments. No critical behavioral or usage detail is missing.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by connecting 'next_cursor' from the response to the 'cursor' parameter, explaining the pagination workflow that ties parameters together across calls.

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?

States a specific action ('Get a page of comments') on a specific resource ('a Yandex Tracker issue by its id'). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like issue_get_worklogs or issue_get_attachments by naming the exact resource.

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?

Clear context: this is the tool for fetching issue comments, identified by issue_id. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource specificity makes the intended use unambiguous. The pagination instruction ('pass it back as cursor until it is null') also guides multi-page usage.

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