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

With no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint annotations, the description carries the burden. The verb 'Fetches' transparently indicates a read-only operation, which is appropriate for this simple get-by-key tool. It does not elaborate on error cases, but given the simplicity, this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It conveys the essential information with maximum efficiency.

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's simplicity (one required parameter), the presence of an output schema, and the clear action stated, the description is fully complete. No additional details are needed for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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%—the key parameter is well-described ('The issue key, like ABC-123'). The description's 'by its key' adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Fetches'), the resource ('the details of a specific issue'), and the means ('by its key'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_issues (plural) by indicating this tool targets a single, specific 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 implies usage—use this when you have a specific issue key and need its details—but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives. The sibling list provides context but the description itself lacks direct guidance.

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

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

With no annotations beyond the title, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'fetches' clearly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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 (8 words) that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or filler content.

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 description is adequate for a simple filtered list tool given the rich input schema and presence of an output schema. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance relative to siblings and does not clarify the logical combination of filters (AND/OR) beyond the brief phrase. It is minimal but not incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'by user ID and/or project ID' adds a minor clarification that both filters can be combined, which is not explicit in the schema's 'Use this or project_id' language. However, it does not add detail about the timestamp parameters, leaving the schema to carry that weight.

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 'Fetches issues filtered by user ID and/or project ID' clearly specifies a verb (fetches), resource (issues), and the filtering scope. The plural 'issues' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_issue' (singular), and the resource name separates it from 'get_users' and 'get_projects'.

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 instead of the sibling 'get_issue' or when not to use it. It simply states what the tool does without mentioning alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the tool name.

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

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

The description claims to fetch 'all projects' but does not disclose that the keyword parameter can filter results. This omission could mislead an agent into expecting an unfiltered list in all cases. No annotations exist to compensate for the lack of behavioral detail.

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 is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It wastes no words, though it omits important details.

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's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is under-specified. It fails to mention the filtering capability, leading to an incomplete picture. The absence of usage guidance further reduces completeness for an agent deciding when to invoke the 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 provides a detailed, 100% description of the keyword parameter, including matching behavior and case insensitivity. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Fetches') and clearly identifies the resource ('all projects within the Linear organization'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that operate on different resources (issues, users).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools work on different resources, but there is no explicit mention of when to choose get_projects or when to avoid it.

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

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (e.g., readOnlyHint), so the description carries full burden. It only states a simple fetch operation, without disclosing pagination, rate limits, or that the keyword parameter is required but nullable to return all users. This lacks the behavioral context needed for safe operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that uses no filler words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse.

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 and detailed parameter schema, the description is minimally sufficient for a simple list tool. However, the required-but-nullable keyword parameter and absence of usage context around filtering could confuse an agent, leaving room for improvement in guiding full invocation.

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 schema description covers 100% of the parameter, detailing that keyword performs case-insensitive partial matches on id, name, displayName, or email. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 all users in the Linear organization with a specific verb ('Fetches') and resource ('users'). This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_issue and get_projects, which target different entity types.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description does not mention whether a keyword is needed or how to fetch all users without filtering, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema.

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