linear_getRoadmaps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the trivial 'Get a list' - it does not mention default ordering, archived handling, or result shape. Given the annotations, the bar is lower, but the description still contributes nothing to behavioral understanding.

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 unnecessary words, and the purpose is stated upfront. It is appropriately concise, though it could incorporate usage guidance without becoming verbose. No structural issues.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return format is covered), the description omits any usage context such as when to filter by archived, how ordering works, or how this complements the other roadmap tools. An agent calling this tool would have to infer all behavioral nuances from the schema, making the description incomplete for a list operation that supports optional filters.

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%; all three parameters (limit, orderBy, includeArchived) have descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full semantic load.

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 resource ('list of roadmaps'), which is specific and distinguishable from the sibling linear_getRoadmapById that targets a single roadmap. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with other list getters like linear_getProjects, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where a caller should prefer linear_getRoadmapById for a single roadmap, nor does it clarify default behavior around archived items or pagination. Agents must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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