linear_get_teams

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is helpful, but it does not mention pagination, authentication requirements, or the exact return structure beyond implying 'states and labels'. The description is minimally transparent but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 is direct and free of unnecessary words. It clearly states the action, resource, and relevant included data in an efficient manner. 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?

For a simple no-parameter retrieval tool, the description is largely complete: it identifies the tool's output (teams with states and labels). However, there is no output schema and no annotation, so it does not disclose whether the response is paginated or if there are volume limits. Given the simplicity, this is a minor gap, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage by definition). Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the absence is not a deficiency.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'all teams', clearly indicating a retrieval operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the resource (teams) and including additional detail ('with their states and labels'), which is not mentioned in other tool names.

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 exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name. No context about scenarios where this tool is preferred is given.

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