Get bug comments

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations: comment #0 is the original description, and the tool supports paging, newest-first ordering, time filtering, and truncation. This helps the agent understand behavior without contradicting 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. It mentions the distinctive 'comment #0' behavior and summarizes the main capabilities without wasted words.

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 read-only tool with seven parameters, the description covers the major behavioral options and the important 'comment #0' concept. There is no output schema, so return-field details are not explicitly provided, but this is a relatively simple fetch operation and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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 coverage is high (86%), and most parameters already have descriptive definitions. The description maps high-level features like paging, newest-first ordering, time filtering, and truncation to parameters, but it does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the operation ('Fetch the comment thread for a bug') and identifies the resource as bug comments. It is specific enough to distinguish from attachments or bug metadata, though it does not explicitly separate it from namesake siblings like get_bug_history.

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 intended use is implied by the purpose: call this when you need the comment thread for a bug. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools such as get_bug_history or get_bug_attachments, nor any exclusion criteria.

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