list_pr_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is established. The description adds useful context by noting that inline comments carry file and line information. It does not disclose pagination behavior or the default kind=conversation behavior, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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, no fluff. The first sentence states the core operation immediately, and the second earns its place by giving meaningful behavioral context about inline comments. The structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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 six parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, so the description does not need to restate return types. However, it omits the meaningful default behavior of kind=conversation and gives no indication of pagination controls. This leaves an agent without enough context to know that listing 'comments' by default excludes inline comments, which is a real gap.

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 only 33%, covering kind and per_page, while repo_owner, repo_name, pr_number, and page lack schema descriptions. The tool description does not compensate: it never mentions required parameters or pagination, and it only indirectly supports the kind parameter by mentioning inline comments. With this low coverage, more parameter guidance was needed.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Lists the comments on a pull request.' It also adds a distinguishing detail about inline comments carrying file and line context, which helps differentiate this from comment-adding tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling tool, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 phrase 'so a second review can tell what it already said' implies a use case: checking existing PR commentary during review. But there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related tools like update_pr_comment, add_pr_comments, or get_pr_diff, and no exclusions are stated.

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