linear_getUsers

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already cover the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, rate limits, or return-value structure. Since this is a read-only operation with an output schema, the lack of extra detail is acceptable, but the description itself does not enrich beyond annotations.

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. It efficiently conveys the core action and scope. Every word earns its place, exemplifying concise structuring.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is fully complete. It answers what the tool does, and the output schema handles the return description. There is no missing information an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers them. Per the baseline rule for 0 params, a score of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none exist, and that is appropriate; nothing is missing.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('list of users') with scope ('in the Linear organization'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like getViewer (current user) and getOrganization (org metadata), allowing an agent to select it appropriately without ambiguity.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getViewer or getOrganization. The purpose is clear enough that usage is implied, but no alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned, leaving room for an agent to guess about edge cases (e.g., 'when you need all users, not just yourself').

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