bb_pr_list_comments

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: comments are classified as inline, replies, and resolved-thread comments. It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful context about the tool's output shape.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds only high-value distinguishing detail. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary background.

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?

Given the read-only annotation, an output schema, and fully documented parameters, the description is complete for selecting and invoking the tool correctly. It explains the key behavioral distinctions an agent needs and does not need to restate schema defaults or return structures.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents pr_id, max_pages, repo_slug, workspace, and include_resolved. The description adds no parameter-specific behavior beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List comments on a pull request', then clearly distinguishes the tool by describing output nuances (inline with file/line, replies, resolved threads). This separates it from sibling comment-related tools like bb_pr_comment and bb_pr_resolve_thread.

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 intended use is implied: use this tool when you need to enumerate PR comments and understand their inline, reply, or resolution status. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer for related tasks like posting comments or resolving threads.

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