get_issue

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Fetch' clearly signals a read operation, and the description transparently lists the exact fields returned, including the git branch name Linear suggests. It does not cover error behavior or authentication, but for a simple get-by-identifier tool this is reasonably transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the identifier format is immediately clarified, and the return-value enumeration is useful and compact.

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?

For a single-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains how to identify the issue, what data will be returned, and implies a read-only operation. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description fully compensates by explaining that the sole parameter is a human identifier and providing a concrete format example ('GOV-123'). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema field name 'identifier'.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), identifies the resource ('a Linear issue'), and specifies the lookup mechanism ('by its human identifier') with a concrete example ('GOV-123'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_issues.

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 makes it clear this tool is for fetching an issue when its human identifier is already known. It does not explicitly mention alternatives such as search_issues when the identifier is unknown, but the context strongly implies the appropriate use case.

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