linear_getInitiatives

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 nothing beyond the annotations — it only restates the read operation. Since there is no contradiction and the annotations carry the burden, a 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?

A single declarative sentence with zero waste. Every word earns its place and the purpose is front-loaded. Nothing extraneous.

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?

Complete for a simple list tool. The annotations carry the safety profile, the schema documents both parameters, an output schema exists, and the description states the scope precisely. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters (limit and includeArchived) fully documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 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?

States a specific verb ('get'), a precise resource ('initiatives'), and a scope ('all'). The phrase clearly distinguishes it from siblings like getInitiativeById, createInitiative, archiveInitiative, and getInitiativeProjects. An agent can tell exactly what this 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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions are provided. For a straightforward list tool the usage is implied, and the siblings (getInitiativeById, createInitiative, etc.) make the alternative routes inferable, but the description leaves routing entirely to the agent rather than stating it.

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