getLinearFavorites

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation ('Retrieves') but does not mention pagination, result ordering, or whether favorites are returned as a combined array or separate structures. For a tool with no annotation support, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, well-structured sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and immediately states the core function.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description conveys what is returned (a list of favorite projects and issues) and the intended user scope. It could be slightly more explicit about the return format, but for a basic list retrieval, this is adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because none exist, but it does clarify the scope (favorites for the authenticated user) through its text, which is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and names the exact resource ('favorite projects and issues from Linear for the authenticated user'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that list all projects or issues. It is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 when favorites are needed (as opposed to all issues or projects), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like listLinearProjects or listMyLinearIssues. There is no exclusionary guidance or named alternatives, so the context is clear but not deeply instructive.

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