linear_getIssues

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

Annotations already accurately declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'recent' which hints at ordering/filtering behavior, but it does not elaborate on how recency is defined (e.g., by updatedAt or createdAt) or whether the list is flat and unpaginated. This is minimal added context beyond annotations, so a baseline 3 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, direct sentence containing the essence of the operation with no filler. The verb is front-loaded and the sentence is immediately actionable, making it as concise and well-structured as possible for a list tool.

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?

Given that the tool is simple (one optional parameter) and an output schema exists (per context signals), the description need not explain return values. However, the vagueness of 'recent' and the lack of any statement about scope (team, project, global) leave an agent uncertain whether this returns all accessible issues or a filtered subset. Since output schema covers the shape, completeness is acceptable but not strong.

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?

The input schema fully describes the sole parameter 'limit' with its type, default, and purpose, giving 100% coverage. The description adds nothing about parameters, so it relies entirely on the schema. With high schema coverage, a score of 3 matches the baseline for this dimension.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('a list of recent issues'), which is distinct from tools that fetch a single issue (linear_getIssueById) or search (linear_searchIssues). However, the qualifier 'recent' is vague and does not precisely define the scope (e.g., all issues across the workspace or a specific team), leaving some ambiguity about the exact set returned.

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 choose this tool over alternatives such as linear_getProjectIssues, linear_getCycleIssues, or linear_searchIssues. The description implies a general recent-issue listing but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or the presence of more targeted list tools, forcing the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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