linear_getTeamDocuments

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the team-scoping behavior, but it does not disclose things like default limits, archived handling beyond the schema parameter, or pagination behavior; the schema partially covers these.

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 filler or redundant content. Every word earns its place, and the core meaning is immediately available to the agent.

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 the rich output schema, fully described parameters, and safety annotations, the description supplies the essential context for a team-scoped read operation. It is adequate for invoking the tool correctly; the main missing element is explicit routing guidance among sibling document tools, already penalized in usage guidelines.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, including teamId, limit, title, orderBy, and includeArchived. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score 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 the verb ('Get'), resource ('documents'), and scope ('associated with a specific Linear team'), making the tool's core function unambiguous. It is distinguishable from generic document tools like linear_getDocuments by the team-specific focus, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to draw the contrast.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as linear_getDocuments, linear_searchDocuments, or linear_getProjectDocuments. Given the large sibling list with many document-related tools, the absence of any when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction leaves selection to inference.

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