linear_getFavoriteViews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide — it does not mention pagination, response shape, or any side effects. Since the bar is lower with annotations, a 3 is appropriate because the description adds little value beyond structured fields.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, and includes a clarifying clause about the included view types. There is zero wasteful language, and it conveys the essential purpose immediately.

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 tool with complete parameter schema, safety annotations, and an output schema, the description provides the core information needed (what it returns and the scope). It lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer it over getSavedViews, but the name and description make that distinction implied. Minor omission keeps it from a 5.

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 coverage is 100% — all three parameters (limit, orderBy, includeArchived) are described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters; it simply states the resource. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get favorite Linear views', and explicitly disambiguates that it includes both saved and predefined views. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like linear_getSavedViews (which is specifically about saved views) and add/remove favorite tools.

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. There is no mention of, e.g., 'Use this instead of getSavedViews when you need both saved and predefined views' or any exclusions. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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