get_comments

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, the description discloses default ordering, pagination semantics, tie-breaking by comment id, the special limit=0 behavior with no 100-comment cap, the since filter format, and that total reflects the filtered collection. This is excellent 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then packs detailed behavior into a compact, well-organized set of clauses. No sentence is wasted; every detail adds necessary invocation semantics.

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 tool's moderate complexity (filtering, sorting, pagination, cap behavior) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential invocation details. It even explains edge-case pagination and how total is computed, making it fully adequate for correct usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates: it explains order values and default, start_at/limit pagination with tie-breaking, limit=0 special behavior, since's ISO-8601 offset requirement and filtering semantics, and the meaning of total. Even issue_key is implied by 'an issue's comments'.

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 opening sentence 'List an issue's comments' states a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like get_issue, get_attachments, and get_changelog. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 makes it clear the tool retrieves comments for an issue and provides detailed pagination/filtering behavior, giving a strong sense of when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose statement is sufficiently specific to route an agent correctly.

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