list_comments

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds nothing further: no ordering, no pagination, no visibility/permission behavior, no comment-count limits. The description carries only what the annotation plus name already convey.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness; there is no front-loaded scoping detail to anchor the agent.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a list endpoint with one undocumented parameter and no pagination or ordering guidance, the definition leaves notable gaps an agent would need filled.

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 0% for the single required issue_id parameter, so the description must compensate and it does so only weakly — 'задачи' hints that the id refers to an issue, but no format (key vs. numeric id) is given.

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 states a specific verb and resource (retrieve the comments of a task), which is unambiguous even in its terse Russian form. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling add_comment or indicate scope (all comments vs. filtered/paginated).

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_comment or get_issue, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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