Get Pull Request Comments

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 base safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral details: pagination support, return enriched with resolution status, and a warning for large fetches. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Note), uses bullet points for parameters, and is concise without any fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 description covers pagination, limits, warnings, return fields, and defaults. It lacks mention of error cases or status codes, but given the presence of an output schema, the return fields are well documented. A minor gap but overall complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, defaults, and constraints. For example, 'unresolved_only: If true, returns only unresolved comments (default: False)' and 'workspace: Workspace name (optional, defaults to configured workspace)'. This adds significant meaning 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 'List comments on a pull request with pagination support.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_pull_request_comment' (single comment) and 'get_pull_request_tasks'.

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 by stating it lists comments with pagination, but does not explicitly tell when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'get_pull_request_comment' for a single comment. The context from sibling tools provides some differentiation, but no explicit guidance.

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