linear_getRoadmapById

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is fully covered outside the description. The description adds no behavioral detail such as error behavior or included related objects, but none is required for this simple retrieval operation.

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 clear sentence that immediately states action and target. No filler; the verb and resource are front-loaded.

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?

With one documented parameter, a rich annotations block, and an output schema present, the description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. It could have pointed to linear_getRoadmaps for ID discovery, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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 single 'id' parameter is already fully documented in the schema ('The ID of the roadmap to retrieve'), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 'Get details of a specific roadmap by ID' names the resource (roadmap) and the operation (get details), and the 'by ID' qualifier clearly separates it from list-style siblings like linear_getRoadmaps. An agent can tell this tool retrieves a single roadmap rather than enumerating all roadmaps.

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 or alternative-tool guidance is provided; an agent must infer from 'by ID' that this is for retrieving one roadmap rather than listing all roadmaps. There are no prerequisites or exclusions stated, but the use case is strongly implied by the name and description.

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