get_issue_comments

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Returns list of comments' without mentioning pagination behavior (e.g., minId/maxId), permissions, error cases, or whether the operation is read-only beyond the verb 'Returns'. This leaves the agent uncertain about real-world behavior.

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, grammatically clear sentence with zero filler. It conveys the core purpose efficiently, making it appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool.

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 has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain how to identify an issue (issueId vs issueKey), how to leverage count/minId/maxId/order for pagination, or what the response structure looks like. This is a significant gap for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all 6 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema; it neither explains parameter relationships nor clarifies optionality. Thus, it does not elevate beyond the schema-provided information.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('list of comments for an issue'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_issue_comment/update_issue_comment by focusing on retrieval, and from get_pull_request_comments by scoping to issues.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description only states what the tool does, not the context or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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