linear_initiative_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact: the response expands related projects and links rather than returning a bare initiative. It omits any note about permissions or failure modes on a missing id.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler; the action, scope and returned payload are all front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description gives what an agent needs: what is fetched, by which key, and that nested data comes back. Slightly thin on error behavior for an invalid id, but nothing essential is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as the initiative's UUID directly in the schema, so the description need not repeat format details. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('initiative'), and scope ('one'), plus it names the payload contents ('projects and links'). This distinguishes it from the sibling linear_initiatives_list, though the sibling is not named explicitly and could not be mistaken given the singular framing.

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 singular 'one' implies fetching a specific initiative by identifier versus listing many, which is enough to route an agent between linear_initiative_get and linear_initiatives_list. However, no explicit when-to-use or prerequisites (e.g., you must already have an id) are stated.

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