linear_getCycleIssues

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It confirms this is a read operation ('Get'), but does not disclose behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or the effect of default values for parameters like includeCompleted. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core action and context. Every word 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?

Despite having 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return format, mention that cycleId is required, or clarify ordering behavior. For a tool with this complexity, the description lacks sufficient detail to fully prepare an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a framing ('PM-friendly filters') that groups the filter parameters, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already describes for each parameter. The mention of 'state, assignee, labels, and completion status' maps directly to schema parameters.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'issues in a cycle', and mentions PM-friendly filters, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like linear_getIssues (all issues) or linear_getProjectIssues (project-scoped). The scope is unambiguous.

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 implies usage for retrieving cycle issues with filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., linear_getIssues for cross-cycle queries). No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites is provided.

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