team_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read operation by stating 'who on the team is working on what right now,' but does not detail data freshness, permissions, scoping behavior without a team_key, or any side effects. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise, consisting of two clear sentences: the first defines the purpose and the second gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it easy to scan.

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 has one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate context for what it does and when to use it. However, it does not explain the return format or the behavior when no team_key is provided, which could leave an agent uncertain about the output.

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% coverage for the single parameter 'team_key' with a schema description. The main description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool returns current work assignments from Linear ('Who on the team is working on what right now, from Linear'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_issue (which retrieves a single issue) and search_linear (which is a general search) by focusing on real-time team status.

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 explicitly states when to call the tool ('when the user asks what the team is doing, whether someone is already on a task, or before picking up work that might overlap with a teammate'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though the context of sibling tools helps.

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