gh_issue_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a useful behavioral detail: the body is passed via a temp file, which is not evident from the schema. However, it does not mention other behaviors like authentication, rate limits, or return values.

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: the first states the purpose, and the second adds a useful implementation detail. It is front-loaded, concise, and every word earns its place.

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 relatively simple tool, the description covers the essential purpose and a key behavioral detail. The output schema exists (though not shown), so return values need not be described. It lacks explicit usage boundaries but is otherwise complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds a note about the body being passed via a temp file but does not enrich the semantics of repo, number, or body beyond the schema descriptions.

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 action ('Add a comment') and target ('to an issue (or PR)'). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like gh_issue_create and gh_issue_edit, which handle creation and editing rather than commenting.

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 clear context for when to use the tool—when adding a comment to an issue or PR—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The naming and sibling list imply differentiation, but no direct comparison is made.

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