linear_action

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

No annotations are provided. The description is a high-level summary that omits behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements (though api_key is a parameter), idempotency, or side effects of create_issue. For a tool with mutations, this is a significant 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 front-loads the main actions. It is efficient but could be better structured to highlight the 'action' parameter. Still, every part earns its place.

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 has 11 parameters, multiple actions (including mutation), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, parameter dependencies, and error handling. More context is needed for agent success.

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 with descriptions for all 11 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond enumerating the actions. The schema does the heavy lifting, so 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 enumerates specific actions: list/search issues, create issues, get project details, list teams. This provides a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools which target other APIs.

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 does not offer any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the general purpose (Linear API) but lacks context like prerequisites, when to choose a specific action, 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.