linear_getInitiativeProjects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond the core operation (e.g., pagination, ordering, default archive exclusion). Since annotations handle safety, the description doesn't need to repeat it, but it also provides no extra behavioral context, so 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded with the core action and resource. It is extremely concise with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand.

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 read-only list operation with a complete schema and an output schema present, the description covers all essential context. An agent knows exactly what to expect and how to invoke the tool correctly. No missing details deter correct usage.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters (initiativeId and includeArchived), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific meaning or usage hints beyond the schema, so a score of 3 is correct.

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 ('Get') and the resource ('all projects') scoped to 'an initiative', which distinguishes it from siblings like linear_getProjects (all projects) and linear_getProjectById (single project). It precisely conveys what the tool does.

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 when you have an initiative ID and need its associated projects, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance. A score of 4 reflects the clear context but missing explicit alternatives.

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