linear_getComments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not mention pagination, ordering, or the return format. Since the safety is already known, the description should add value by explaining how the tool behaves (e.g., returns a list, requires exactly one parent ID), but it does not.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and scope without wasted words. It is appropriately concise for its purpose, with no filler or redundant content.

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 10 optional parameters spanning multiple resource types, the description is too minimal. It does not clarify that at least one parent identifier is required, whether multiple can be combined, or what the default ordering/pagination behavior is. Although the output schema exists and covers return values, the agent is left without guidance on how to select the correct parameter, making the description incomplete for correct invocation.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented with its meaning. The tool description adds a small amount of context by listing the parent resource types, which implies that one of the corresponding ID parameters should be provided. However, it does not specify that exactly one is required or how to choose among them, so it does not significantly elevate understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 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 action (get comments) and the resource (comments) and lists the parent entities (issue, project, initiative, update, document content). It distinguishes from mutating comment tools (create/update/delete) but does not explicitly differentiate from any other getter like getIssueHistory, which could also return comments. Slightly broad but not a tautology, and the core purpose is clear.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the read-only counterpart to createComment/updateComment/deleteComment, nor does it state any conditions or exclusions. The only implied usage is that it is for retrieving comments, but the tool does not clarify whether to prefer this over other retrieval methods like getIssueHistory.

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