get_my_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get your assigned Linear issues' without mentioning read-only status, authentication requirements, pagination, sorting, or possible limitations. For a get operation, the behavior is mostly implied, but the lack of explicit detail about side effects or safety is a gap.

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 is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no redundant information or filler. It earns its place with clear, direct language.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description's brevity is somewhat appropriate. However, it does not mention what the returned data contains (e.g., issue titles, statuses, links) or any response format. Since the agent must select and invoke the tool correctly, the description is minimally adequate but leaves room for ambiguity about output structure and edge cases.

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 parameter 'state' is fully documented in the schema with an enum and default value. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Get your assigned Linear issues' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('assigned Linear issues'), clearly indicating it retrieves issues assigned to the current user. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_issues' (which searches all issues) and 'get_ticket' (which retrieves one ticket), though not explicitly. Clarity is strong, but differentiation could be more explicit.

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 versus alternatives like 'search_issues' or 'get_ticket'. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With sibling tools present, this lack of usage direction leaves the agent to infer the use case from the name alone.

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