linear_getCycleDocuments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context—it implies a scoped read operation but doesn't mention details like whether archived documents appear by default (handled via parameter) or output format. It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction; the description adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 zero wasted words. It is concise, clearly states the primary purpose, and is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no redundant elaboration.

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 simple read-only operation with a well-documented schema and clear annotations, the description is adequate. It doesn't explain return values, but an output schema exists to cover that. Some nuance about default behavior (e.g., limit default 25, archived excluded by default) is present in parameter descriptions, not needed here. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 of the 5 parameters (cycleId, limit, title, orderBy, includeArchived) already has an individual description. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline expectation for high coverage.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('documents associated with a specific Linear cycle'), which clearly indicates the operation. It distinguishes from sibling document getters (e.g., linear_getProjectDocuments) by explicitly scoping to a cycle via the cycleId parameter. While it doesn't explicitly enumerate exclusions, the scope is unambiguous enough to avoid confusion.

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 alternative document retrieval tools (e.g., getProjectDocuments, getTeamDocuments). The description does not mention prerequisites, alternative selection conditions, or any caveats. The user must infer usage from the tool name and parameter alone, which is insufficient.

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