list_issue_comments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (comment ID, author, truncated text at 120 chars, timestamp) and pagination behavior. It does not mention ordering or read-only nature, but the 'list' verb and the specificity of return data are sufficient for common use cases.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide a valuable cross-reference. Every word earns its place; no fluff or 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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description fully covers return fields, truncation behavior, and the distinction from get_issue. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly and interpret results.

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 all 5 parameters (page, size, owner, project, issue_id) already have descriptive text in the schema. The description's only param-related mention is 'pagination', which is also covered by page/size in the schema. Thus it adds no significant extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 'List comments on a specific issue with pagination', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_issue (which returns the issue description) and add_issue_comment (which creates comments), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use get_issue to see the issue description itself — this tool only returns discussion comments.' This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative, and clarifies its scope (only discussion comments, not the issue body).

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