get_my_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the read-only scope ('all issues assigned to you') which implies safety, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or response behavior for empty results. This is a minimal disclosure, yielding a score of 3.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action, followed by relevant use cases and examples. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description provides clear purpose, usage context, and examples. It could be more complete by hinting at the return format (e.g., a list of issues) but is adequate 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?

The single parameter 'limit' is fully described in the schema with a clear explanation and default/max values. The description itself adds no additional meaning to the parameter. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 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 tool's function: 'Get all issues assigned to you in Linear.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like search_issues (searching) and get_issue (single issue). The examples further reinforce the purpose.

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 usage context: 'Perfect for daily standup prep or checking your current workload.' It implies when to use this tool but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives such as search_issues for broader queries, preventing a 5.

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