linear_getInitiativeDocuments

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 established. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, filter semantics, or the fact that it returns a list. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also provides no extra value beyond the purpose.

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 no unnecessary words. It is direct and efficient, fully earning its place without any fluff.

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 that the output schema is present and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. The required initiativeId is documented in the schema, filters are described, and the purpose is clear. No critical information is missing for this read operation.

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?

All five parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The description adds no information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('documents'), and the scope ('for a specific Linear initiative'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getProjectDocuments or getTeamDocuments by the initiative context, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 that the tool requires an initiative ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like getDocuments or getProjectDocuments. There is no mention of exclusions or the conditions under which another tool would be more appropriate, leaving the choice to the agent's inference.

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