linear_getAttachments

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already declare (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting options, what fields are returned, or any potential side effects. With annotations covering safety, the description fails to add value such as rate-limit implications or output structure.

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 terse (one short sentence), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits critical operational details, so the brevity is not earned—it sacrifices necessary information for the sake of brevity.

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 tool with four parameters and an output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not mention the required issueId, what the limit controls, how orderBy works, or the meaning of includeArchived. Although the output schema exists, the description leaves too much to inference, making it incomplete for reliable agent use.

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%, meaning the description does not explain any of the four parameters (issueId, limit, orderBy, includeArchived). It does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions; in fact, it ignores them entirely, leaving the agent to infer parameter meaning solely from names and types.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('attachments for an issue'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like linear_addAttachment. It conveys the essential purpose without ambiguity, though it does not elaborate on what constitutes an 'attachment' in this context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when this is the appropriate tool (e.g., for retrieving all attachments for an issue) or when to use other tools like linear_addAttachment or linear_getIssueById. No context or exclusionary conditions are provided.

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