get_issue_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. However, it only restates the basic operation and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only guarantees, potential side effects, or handling of non-existent issues. The 'get' verb implies non-mutating behavior, but this is not explicitly stated or elaborated.

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 extremely concise, with one sentence stating the purpose and a simple Args list. Every part is necessary, with no fluff or 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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks any usage guidance or behavioral context (e.g., ordering, pagination, empty results), and given the absence of annotations, it is minimally viable but leaves gaps for an agent trying to decide when to use it.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description includes an 'Args' section that explains each parameter ('project_id: The UUID identifier of the project', 'issue_id: The UUID identifier of the issue'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's type and title.

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 clear action: 'Get all comments for a specific issue.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_issue_comment (adds comments) and get_issue (retrieves issue details).

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 exclusions or reference sibling tools like add_issue_comment or get_issue, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the name.

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