get_issue_comments

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

The description fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic read operation. There is no mention of pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, or potential limitations. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but only states a trivial verb-noun phrase.

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 concise—a single sentence with no superfluous words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity, e.g., by mentioning that it returns all comments for the specified issue.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description lacks completeness. It does not state that the tool returns a list of comments or any details about the response format, which is critical for an agent to correctly interpret the output.

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 a clear description ('target issue id') for the single required parameter. The description adds marginal context by tying the parameter to a 'specific issue' in Linear, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 action ('Get comments'), the resource ('for a specific issue'), and the platform ('in Linear'). It distinctly identifies its function without ambiguity and differentiates from siblings like create_comment or delete_comment.

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 provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_issues or project_issues. The usage context is implied (when you have an issue ID), but no exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are given.

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