readLinearIssue

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for indicating side effects. The verb 'Retrieves' clearly signals a read-only operation, and the listed return contents add useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential errors, permissions, rate limits, or the exact response structure.

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 that leads with the verb and resource, then efficiently lists the key data fields. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (one parameter) and lack of an output schema, the description does a decent job by enumerating expected return contents. Still, the phrase 'related data' is vague, and the description omits any usage context or error/edge-case information, leaving minor gaps.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter issueId with a clear description ('The unique identifier of the Linear issue.'). The tool description does not add any additional parameter meaning, such as the ID format or how to obtain it, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics.

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 the specific verb 'Retrieves' with a clear resource, 'the specified Linear issue', and lists the data returned (assignee, state, labels, comments, related data). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listLinearIssues and listMyLinearIssues, which return collections rather than a single issue's details.

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 when to use this tool—when you need comprehensive, detailed data for a single issue—but it does not explicitly state when to use it over listLinearIssues or how it relates to other issue tools. There is no exclusion guidance or mention of prerequisites such as needing an issue ID from a list operation.

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