linear_get_issue_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful detail that threaded replies are included, but it does not mention pagination behavior (after/first), the default exclusion of archived comments, or any other side effects. This is a read operation, so the risk is low, but the description could be more explicit about these traits.

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, concise sentence that states the core functionality and a key behavioral detail (threaded replies) without any fluff or redundant information. It is well front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity and a schema that covers all parameters with descriptions, the overall description is adequate. It lacks an output schema but the purpose is clear. However, it does not mention the default number of comments or how pagination works, which would be helpful for a complete understanding, but the schema provides these details, so the missing context is minor.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all parameters (issueId, after, first, includeArchived). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already in the schema, such as highlighting that issueId is the primary filter or explaining the pagination cursor details.

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 retrieves comments for a specific issue, with the added detail that it includes threaded replies. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_comment (write) and search_issues (search). The verb 'Get' and resource 'comments' are specific and unambiguous.

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 by its name and phrasing, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., searching for comments via search_issues or creating a comment with create_comment). No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so the guidance is only implied.

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