linear_getTeamResources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns 'home resource sections and pinned documents or external links', which gives context about the response content. It doesn't mention pagination or error behavior, but for a simple read operation this is acceptable.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does. Every word earns its place.

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 existence of an output schema and annotations covering safety, this is a complete description for a simple getter. It clearly states what is returned (home resource sections and pinned items). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing; it could optionally mention whether the response is paginated, but that's likely in the output schema.

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% – the single parameter 'teamId' is documented as 'ID of the team whose home resources should be returned'. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so a baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly names the resource: 'team home resource sections and pinned documents or external links'. This distinguishes it from siblings like linear_getTeamLabels or linear_getTeamDocuments, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The scope is clear enough for an agent to understand what this tool returns.

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 use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. It simply states what it does. With many sibling getters (e.g., linear_getTeamLabels, linear_getTeamDocuments), the lack of explicit routing makes it harder for an agent to select this tool over others.

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