list_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action and provides a docs link, without disclosing any behavioral details such as pagination behavior, sorting, or required authentication. The operation is read-only, but this isn't explicitly stated.

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 one short sentence plus a docs link. Every word is functional, and the external reference is useful. It is appropriately concise for a simple listing operation.

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 straightforward list endpoint, the description is minimally viable but leaves out useful context like return format, pagination, and sorting. With no output schema or annotations, a bit more detail would improve completeness. However, the name and schema hint at the operation's simplicity.

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 schema already describes owner, repo, and issue_number (60% coverage), but the description adds no meaning beyond that. It does not discuss pagination parameters (page, per_page) or any parameter relationships. Given the medium coverage, the description should have compensated but did not.

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 tool's function with a specific verb (List) and resource (comments on a GitHub issue). It distinguishes well from siblings like add_comment and list_issues by explicitly scoping to issue 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 when you need to retrieve comments for a specific issue, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. The docs link offers more context but is not integrated into the description.

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