List pull request comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states that both inline review comments and top-level PR conversation comments are included, and that pagination is supported. This adds value without contradicting the annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states what the tool does and its key scope. Every part is informative, with no filler or redundant repetition.

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?

For a read-only list tool with good schema coverage and annotations, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and pagination behavior. It does not detail output fields, but the absence of an output schema and the straightforward 'list comments' pattern make this acceptable 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: all six parameters (owner, repo, pull_number, page, per_page, max_pages) have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 ('List') and clarifies the resource (pull request comments) and scope (both inline review comments and top-level PR conversation comments), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_prs and get_pr_diff.

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 clearly identifies what the tool is for (listing both comment types with pagination), giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like get_pr or post_review_comment, so it misses the full 'when-not/alternatives' guidance.

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