linear_getInitiativeById

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond confirming it is a read operation ('Get'), and it doesn't mention any rate limits, authentication, or response characteristics. Since annotations are rich, the description's minimal addition is acceptable, though it could note that the tool retrieves a single entity rather than a list.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and object, and the 'by ID' qualifier immediately clarifies the lookup nature. It is optimal for a get-by-id 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 simple retrieval tool with only two parameters (one required), an output schema, and rich annotations, the description suffices. It correctly identifies the operation and resource. The only minor omission is not explicitly mentioning the includeProjects option, but since it is fully documented in the schema, the description is not incomplete. The tool's complexity is low, so it doesn't require extensive elaboration.

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%, with both parameters (initiativeId, includeProjects) already documented clearly. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, merely reaffirming 'by ID' which the schema already states. The optional includeProjects flag is not highlighted in the description but is fully covered by the parameter description, so the baseline 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 verb 'Get' with the resource 'initiative' and explicitly specifies 'by ID'. It unambiguously identifies the operation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like linear_getInitiatives (list) and linear_getInitiativeProjects (related projects). The purpose is precise and actionable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over linear_getInitiatives or linear_getInitiativeProjects, nor any context on prerequisites or use cases. The description is purely operational without situational direction, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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