linear_getIssues

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states it returns 'recent issues' without defining recency, sorting, pagination, or scope (e.g., all teams or user's teams). This is minimal behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise at 7 words, with no redundant information. However, it may be too terse, lacking important context that could be added without much verbosity.

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 complexity of sibling tools (numerous list/filter tools), the description fails to specify important details like sorting, default behavior, or scope. Without an output schema, the agent has little understanding of what to expect.

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 schema covers the single parameter (limit) 100%, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond 'recent'. Since the schema already documents the parameter, the description provides no additional semantic value, achieving baseline.

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 a list') and resource ('recent issues from Linear'). However, 'recent' is vague and does not differentiate this tool from other list tools like linear_getProjectIssues or linear_searchIssues, which also return issues. The purpose is clear but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as linear_getProjectIssues, linear_getCycleIssues, or linear_searchIssues. The description gives no context about filtering or scope, leaving the agent without decision support.

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