linear_getCustomerNeedById

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., data freshness, authorization). Does not contradict annotations.

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?

Single sentence is efficient and front-loaded. Could be slightly more descriptive (e.g., noting output schema), but current length is appropriate for a simple get-by-ID tool.

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?

Tool is simple with one parameter, good annotations, and an output schema. Description adequately states core purpose. Minor gap: no mention of return fields or typical usage context, but still sufficient for basic selection.

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?

Single parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema as 'Customer need ID'. Description adds no extra meaning, but schema coverage is 100%, 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 'Get a customer need by ID' clearly states the action (get) and resource (customer need) with the identifier (ID). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like linear_getCustomerNeeds (list) and linear_deleteCustomerNeed.

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?

Implied usage: use when you have a specific customer need ID. No explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives (e.g., linear_getCustomerNeeds) or when not to use. Lacks contextual hints about prerequisites.

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