linear_getInitiatives

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'get a list' without confirming it is a read-only operation, nor does it mention pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or data scope implications (e.g., 'all initiatives' might be misleading given the default archive exclusion). The description is minimally transparent.

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 short sentence with no waste. It is concise but could be more informative without losing conciseness (e.g., noting default behavior). It earns its place but omits potentially useful details.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should cover return format, pagination, ordering, and default filtering. None of these are mentioned. For a list tool with two optional parameters, the description is incomplete, leaving the agent with insufficient context for correct invocation.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates the resource. Baseline 3 applies, and since no extra semantic value is provided, the score remains at 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 clearly states the action ('get a list') and resource ('all initiatives from Linear'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like getInitiativeById (single initiative) and createInitiative (creation). However, it does not explicitly clarify that the default list excludes archived initiatives, which slightly reduces precision.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getInitiativeById, getInitiativeProjects, or search-related tools. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or best practices, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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