linear_getServerStatus

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the type of data returned (runtime status, counts, rate-limit snapshot), which goes beyond the annotations, but does not elaborate on specifics like response format or pagination. This is adequate but not rich.

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 immediately states the purpose and key data returned. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it easy to parse for an agent.

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 the tool has no parameters, an output schema (per context), and safe annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. No critical information is missing for an agent to decide whether to invoke it.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema is effectively empty. This is appropriate for a no-argument status check.

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 tool fetches MCP Linear server runtime status, counts, and a rate-limit snapshot. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('server status'), and distinguishes from the sibling linear_getRateLimitStatus by including additional 'counts' and 'runtime' context, making its broader scope evident.

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 implies when to use this tool (when server status or rate-limit snapshot is needed) but does not explicitly state when to prefer linear_getRateLimitStatus for rate-limit-only queries. No exclusions or explicit alternative guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer based on the overlap.

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