linear_get_teams

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

The description explains that the tool returns 'all teams with their states and labels', indicating a read-only operation. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it adequately discloses the basic behavior, though it does not mention potential pagination or ordering.

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 that efficiently conveys the entire purpose and scope. Every word is necessary, and there is no wasted text.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what is retrieved (all teams with states and labels), which covers the essential information. Minor details like workspace scope or return format could be added but are not critical.

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 no parameters (0 parameters, 100% schema coverage). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is no need for additional parameter description.

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 the resource 'teams', and specifies what is included ('their states and labels'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools which deal with issues, projects, comments, etc.

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 implies usage to retrieve all teams with associated states and labels. There are no direct alternative tools for getting teams among siblings, so no explicit when-not guidance is needed. The clarity of purpose provides sufficient context for use.

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