linear_getInitiativeUpdateById

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as authorization needs, rate limits, or return format details, missing an opportunity to add value beyond annotations.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. Every part of the description serves a purpose.

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 one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it could provide context about what an initiative update is or how to obtain the ID, 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% with one parameter (id) described as 'ID of the initiative update to retrieve'. The description does not enhance parameter meaning further, but baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already sufficiently documents it.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves a specific initiative update by ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like linear_getInitiativeUpdates (list) and linear_createInitiativeUpdate (create), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The usage is implied by the name and parameters, but there's no mention of requiring the update ID or when not to use it (e.g., if you need to list all updates). Siblings like linear_getInitiativeUpdates are listed but not referenced.

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