List approval comments

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

The description discloses the HTTP method (GET) and authorization class ('board_or_agent'), adding some behavior beyond the annotations which already mark it as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. However, it does not detail pagination, sorting, or other behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and provides supplementary details efficiently.

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 operation with one parameter and a read-only annotation, the description is adequate but lacks detail on the output format and the specific meaning of the 'id' parameter. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, but the parameter description gap remains.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain the 'id' parameter. While the parameter name 'id' suggests an approval ID, the description should explicitly clarify this to ensure correct usage.

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 'List approval comments' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'pc_get_issues_by_id_comments' which lists issue comments. 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer it over 'pc_get_issues_by_id_comments' or 'pc_post_approvals_by_id_comments'. No explicit context or exclusions are given.

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