linear_auth_callback

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It merely states 'Handle OAuth callback' with no explanation of side effects, required state, return value, or potential errors. This adds no value beyond the tool name itself.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, its brevity comes at the cost of adequate detail, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 callback handler for OAuth, which typically involves token exchange and state verification. With no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully understand the tool's behavior. It omits critical context such as what happens after exchanging the code and whether there are side effects.

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 the single parameter 'code' as 'OAuth authorization code', giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, but since the schema is complete, 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 says 'Handle OAuth callback' which identifies the resource as an OAuth callback but uses the vague verb 'handle'. It distinguishes from the sibling linear_auth (presumably the initiator), but doesn't specify what handling entails, such as exchanging the code for tokens or completing the authentication flow.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool or how it relates to alternatives. The agent is not told that this should be called after linear_auth or when receiving an OAuth redirect. The usage context is entirely implied by the tool name and OAuth conventions.

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