linear_getActiveCycle

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 does not add behavioral context beyond 'get', such as what happens if no active cycle exists (e.g., returns null) or any team-specific constraints. Given the annotations, the lack of additional detail is acceptable but not exemplary.

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, succinct sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter 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?

For a read-only, single-parameter tool with a well-defined purpose and an output schema present, the description is complete. The agent has all necessary information to call the tool correctly: it needs a team ID, and the output schema details the response structure. Nothing essential is missing.

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 only parameter, teamId, is fully described in the schema with 'ID of the team to get the active cycle for', which gives 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ('Get') and the resource ('the currently active cycle for a team'), which is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like getCycles (list all cycles) or getCycleById (specific cycle). The word 'active' uniquely identifies the intended use case.

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 makes it clear that this tool is for retrieving the active cycle for a team, which provides context on when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the phrasing 'currently active' implicitly sets it apart from listing or fetching by ID. No exclusions are stated, but the purpose is clear enough.

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