linear_getIssueById

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond what is stated (e.g., no mention of not-found behavior, rate limits, or return format). Since annotations are present, the bar is lower, and the description is adequate but adds no additional value.

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 with no redundancy. It succinctly conveys the tool's purpose and identifier format with an example, making it highly efficient.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and how to call it. It lacks explicit alternative selection guidance, but that falls under usage guidelines. Otherwise, it is complete for this complexity level.

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 the input schema fully documents the 'id' parameter with the same example 'ABC-123'. The description repeats this without adding new meaning, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'a specific issue', with the identifier format 'ID or identifier (e.g., ABC-123)'. It is distinct from sibling tools like linear_getIssues (list) and linear_searchIssues (search) by specifying 'specific issue'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as linear_searchIssues or linear_getIssues. It does not mention when to prefer this tool (e.g., when you already have an ID) or when not to use it. The name implies usage for known IDs, but this is not stated.

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