linear_getNotifications

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 the key behavioral context that notifications are scoped to the current user, which is beyond the name alone. However, it doesn't mention any pagination behavior, sorting details, or rate limits, so it adds some value but not rich 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, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is appropriately short and avoids verbosity. However, given that it could include a brief note on parameter usage without bloat, it misses an opportunity for structure; but as is, it is concise and 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?

Although an output schema exists (which covers the return shape), the description fails to explain the parameters (limit, orderBy, includeArchived) which are likely essential for filtering and sorting results. The tool has three optional parameters with no guidance, so completeness is low for an agent wanting to call it effectively. The description is too sparse to fully contextualize the tool's capabilities.

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 0% — neither the description nor the schema provides any explanations for the parameters (limit, orderBy, includeArchived). The description says nothing about what these parameters do, how they interact, or their default values. With zero parameter context and a terse description, an agent is left guessing at semantics, making this a critical gap.

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'), a resource ('notifications'), and a scope ('for the current user'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like markNotificationAsRead, getUnreadNotificationCount, and markAllNotificationsAsRead, and an agent can immediately understand what it does without opening the schema.

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 (e.g., getUnreadNotificationCount for just counts, or markNotificationAsRead for mutating). The usage is only implied by the tool's purpose, with no explicit exclusions or conditions. For example, there is no mention of whether this returns only unread notifications or all notifications, which could mislead an agent.

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