list_comments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The word 'list' implies a read-only operation, but no details about pagination, ordering, error handling, or limits are provided. This is adequate for a simple listing tool but lacks deeper behavioral disclosure.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and scope. Every word contributes; there is no fluff.

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 with one parameter and no output schema. The description states what it returns (comments) and its scope (issue), which is largely sufficient. However, it could mention return format or any limitations, but given the simplicity, it is nearly complete.

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% for issueKey, including an example. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, 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 'List all comments for an issue' uses a specific verb (list) and resource (comments) with a clear scope (for an issue). It is distinct from sibling tools like add_comment (adds a comment) and list_worklogs (lists worklogs).

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 when to use the tool (when you need comments for an issue) but provides no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or context about when to prefer this over custom_query or other list tools. No guidance is given for contrasting with siblings.

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