linear_getIssues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the tool's safety profile is covered. The phrase 'recent issues' is useful but vague; it doesn't specify ordering, pagination, or whether it returns all issues or a subset. With annotations handling the safety aspects, the description adds moderate value.

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 superfluous words. It is concise and directly states the tool's purpose.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is minimal but somewhat incomplete. It does not specify ordering, the meaning of 'recent', or any other behavioral details. For a simple read-only list tool, it is acceptable but could be more informative.

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 one parameter (limit) with a description in the schema itself. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add extra meaning. It does not provide additional context beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 gets a list of recent issues from Linear. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the qualifier 'recent' provides some context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like linear_searchIssues or linear_getProjectIssues, which also return issues but with different filters.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as linear_searchIssues for complex queries or linear_getIssueById for a single issue. There is no mention of prerequisites, scope, or exclusions.

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