linear_getUnreadNotificationCount

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., what the count represents, whether limit affects it). It doesn't contradict annotations.

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?

Extremely concise at only four words. However, it sacrifices critical information about the parameter. While front-loaded, the brevity is not fully justified given the missing param explanation.

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?

The core action is simple and well-defined. Annotations and output schema (present but not shown) cover common concerns. The only gap is the undocumented parameter, but overall the description is largely sufficient for a basic count tool.

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 has a single parameter 'limit' (integer, minimum 1) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain the purpose of 'limit' or how it affects the count. This leaves the agent to guess its semantics.

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?

Clearly states 'Get count of unread notifications', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinctly differs from sibling tools like linear_getNotifications (which likely returns full notification objects) and linear_markNotificationAsRead.

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?

No explicit when/when-not context, but the purpose is straightforward: use this tool when only the count is needed, not the full notification list. Alternatives are implied by sibling tools.

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