linear_initiatives_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain context (initiatives replaced roadmaps) but says nothing about pagination behavior, the 50-item default, or archived handling — all of which live only in the schema.

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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and enriched with a useful parenthetical definition. No filler, though it is very short for the filter complexity the tool supports.

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 read-only list tool with a fully documented single filter/paging parameter object and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is adequate. The only real omission is any hint that the tool paginates or filters, but the schema covers that fully.

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 description coverage is 100%: paging, filter, orderBy, includeArchived and the default of 50 are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (initiatives) and even clarifies what an initiative is in Linear's model, which helps an agent understand the domain object. It stops short of differentiating itself from close siblings like linear_initiative_get or linear_project_updates_list.

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 explains what an initiative is but gives no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., fetch a single initiative via linear_initiative_get), and no conditions that select this tool over siblings.

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