linear_getTeamMemberships

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what the annotations already provide (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It does not mention pagination, sorting behavior, or what data is returned. The annotations indicate a safe read operation, but the description misses the opportunity to add context about the response structure or constraints.

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 very short (4 words) and front-loaded, but it is too minimal. While concise, it does not provide enough context to be maximally useful. It could include a brief note on what a membership includes or the effect of optional parameters without becoming verbose.

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 tool's low complexity and the presence of a complete output schema (not shown but noted), the description is functionally adequate but leaves room for improvement. It does not mention the scope of results (e.g., all memberships for a team) or how pagination works, but the schema covers the parameters. The description is bare minimum for a simple read operation.

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 four parameters (limit, teamId, orderBy, includeArchived), so the schema already fully documents each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get team memberships' states the action (get) and resource (team memberships) clearly, but it is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It lacks any additional context to distinguish it from sibling tools like linear_getTeams or linear_updateTeamMembership, though the verb 'get' implies read-only and the resource is specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include related actions (add, remove, update, get teams), but the description does not mention when to choose this one, e.g., for listing all memberships vs. modifying them. The read-only annotation hints at appropriate use, but the description itself offers no explicit direction.

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