linear_getInitiativeProjects

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether archived projects are excluded by default (despite the includeArchived parameter), permissions needed, or side effects. The description adds minimal context beyond the operation.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no extraneous words. It is appropriately concise and clear.

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 simple retrieval tool with comprehensive schema coverage, the description is adequate but lacks usage context and behavioral details. It does not mention return format, default filtering behavior, or differentiate from siblings, which would improve completeness.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the two parameters (initiativeId and includeArchived). No further elaboration on parameter usage or constraints.

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 retrieves projects associated with an initiative ('Get all projects associated with an initiative'), matching the tool name and distinguishing it from siblings like linear_getProjects (which retrieves all projects) and linear_addProjectToInitiative (which adds a project).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., linear_getProjects) or what prerequisites exist (e.g., initiative ID is required but not explained). The description provides 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.