List Linear comments

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description merely echoes that by saying 'List.' It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation—the per-issue scoping is conveyed, but nothing about ordering, pagination, or what is returned, despite the presence of a limit parameter suggesting paged behavior.

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 with no filler, and the core action is stated upfront. It is appropriately minimal for what it covers, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 simple read tool with readOnlyHint=true, one required parameter, and no output schema, the description is barely adequate. It identifies the resource and scope, but the limit parameter's semantics (pagination behavior) and any return-shape expectations are unaddressed. Given the low complexity, this is a minor but real gap.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the two parameters, but it fails to do so. 'On an issue' loosely implies issueId, yet limit is completely undocumented in both the schema (which only gives types and bounds) and the description. The description adds almost no meaning beyond the raw JSON schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List comments on an issue.' The 'on an issue' scope distinguishes it from list tools for other resources (linear_list_issues, linear_list_teams) and from comment mutations (linear_add_comment, linear_update_comment, linear_delete_comment). It is clear but minimal, lacking any detail about the shape or filtering of the listing.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to choose this over linear_search_issues or mention prerequisites like needing a valid issueId. Usage context is only implied by the tool's name and parameter requirement.

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