linear_getIssueHistory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'get the history' without disclosing that it is a read-only operation, auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The limit parameter is not mentioned in the description. This lack of behavioral context 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 10-word sentence, which is very concise. It is front-loaded with the verb. While it earns its place, it could be slightly more informative without being verbose.

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 lack of output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what the returned history events look like, potential pagination, or any nuances about the data. The tool is simple but could benefit from more context.

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 both parameters (issueId and limit). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Per the rules, high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, so this score 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'history of changes made to an issue', which is distinct from sibling tools like linear_getIssueById (issue details) or linear_getComments (comments). It unambiguously communicates what the tool does.

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 any when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or context, such as differentiating from linear_getComments for history of comments. For a simple getter, minimal guidance is acceptable, but the lack of any comparative information earns a mid score.

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