linear_auth_callback

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects (e.g., token storage), required permissions, or rate limits. It only states the high-level action without any details on what happens during 'handling'.

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 very concise at two words, but it is under-specified for an OAuth callback tool. It should include more context (e.g., outcome, requirements) without being verbose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the callback flow, expected results, error conditions, or integration with authentication systems. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand tool behavior.

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 input schema covers the single parameter 'code' with a description matching the tool's purpose. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional meaning, which meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 is minimal, stating 'Handle OAuth callback'. It identifies the resource (OAuth callback) and action (handle) but lacks specificity on what handling entails. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are issue/comment/project related.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, authentication flow context, or when not to use it. It relies on the tool name to imply usage during OAuth callbacks.

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