get_entity_comments

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on pagination behavior, default ordering, empty results, or whether comments include replies/reactions, all of which matter for a listing tool.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though almost to the point of under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

With no output schema and a read-only annotation covering safety, the definition is minimally adequate: it says what is listed and for which entity types. It omits ordering, pagination limits, and how this differs from the sibling comment tools, so an agent lacks routing and result-shape context.

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%, with page, perPage, entityId, and entityType all documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes the entityType enum values and adds no format, ID-source, or paging semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 gives a specific verb (List) and resource (comments) plus the three supported entity scopes (project, portfolio, goal), which matches the entityType enum. It does not distinguish itself from near-neighbors such as get_issue_comments or get_entity_comment, but the purpose is 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent seeing get_entity_comments alongside get_entity_comment, get_issue_comments, and add_entity_comment must infer from the name alone which one applies.

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