linear_getIssueDocuments

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 covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as default filtering of archived documents or pagination behavior, but given the simple read-only nature, a baseline score is appropriate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, conveying the verb, resource, and scope efficiently.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description plus schema provides nearly everything needed for correct invocation. A minor gap is that 'associated' is not elaborated (e.g., linked vs. referenced documents), but the schema's limit/orderBy/includeArchived parameters cover the main call options.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only restates the issueId scoping already present in the parameter description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('documents') and scope ('associated with a specific Linear issue'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like linear_getDocuments, linear_getProjectDocuments, and linear_getTeamDocuments by explicitly scoping to an 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 clear context: use this tool when you need documents tied to a specific issue. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scoping is unambiguous and the sibling names reinforce the distinction.

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