linear_action

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

No annotations are provided. The description says 'Interact with the Linear GraphQL API' implying API calls, but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, idempotency, or side effects beyond 'create' actions. The burden falls on the description, which is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that lists actions without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Slightly longer than necessary but still concise.

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?

For a compound tool with 11 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description only provides a high-level summary. It lacks details on parameter interactions, return values, and error handling. Adequate but leaves 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?

Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond summarizing actions; it does not clarify parameter relationships or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 interacts with the Linear GraphQL API and lists five main actions (list/search issues, create issues, get project, list teams). This provides a specific verb-resource mapping. However, it could be more precise about the scope (e.g., 'list and search issues' is broad) and doesn't differentiate from non-existent Linear siblings.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. Among many sibling tools (github_action, notion_action, etc.), there is no context for choosing Linear_action. It also does not mention prerequisites or when not to use it.

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