linear_getInitiativeById

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what annotations already state (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). It does not mention any side effects, permissions, or response behavior. With annotations present, the description carries minimal extra value.

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 of 9 words, front-loaded with the core action. It contains no unnecessary information or repetition, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

While the input schema covers all parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimal. It does not specify what 'details' includes, nor does it mention potential errors (e.g., invalid ID). Given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already documents their meaning. The tool description does not add any further clarification about parameter values or usage, justifying a baseline score of 3.

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 details of a specific initiative by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('initiative by ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'linear_getInitiatives' (list all) or 'linear_createInitiative' (create). It precisely identifies the action and scope.

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 vs. alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention that this should be used when a specific initiative ID is known, as opposed to 'linear_getInitiatives' for listing all initiatives. There are no exclusions or context for selection.

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