Notes/Comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds valuable context beyond this by specifying the types of notes included ('system notes and inline MR comments'), which helps the agent understand the scope of data returned. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination behavior or authentication requirements, though some of this is covered in the schema.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get notes (comments) on an issue or merge request') and adds clarifying details ('including system notes and inline MR comments') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, 3 required), rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It clearly states what the tool does and the scope of notes retrieved. However, without an output schema, the description could benefit from mentioning the return format or structure of notes, though this is not strictly required for a high score.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters, including their types, constraints, and purposes. The description does not add any additional semantic information about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Get notes') and the target resource ('notes (comments) on an issue or merge request'), specifying the scope ('including system notes and inline MR comments'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_note (which creates notes) and get_issues/get_merge_requests (which retrieve the items themselves rather than their comments).

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 implies usage by specifying the target resource types ('issue or merge request'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention whether to use this for retrieving all comments versus using search tools for filtered results, or clarify if it's the primary method for accessing comments versus other sibling tools. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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