linear_getOrganizationAuditEvents

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It only states it is a read operation, but fails to disclose hidden behaviors like pagination (limit), default ordering, or whether archived events are included by default. Minimal value beyond obvious semantics.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff. However, conciseness sacrifices informativeness. It earns its place but could be expanded to include key details while remaining efficient.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not indicate return format, pagination behavior, or rate limits, making it insufficient for reliable tool selection and 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 0%, meaning parameters lack inline descriptions. The description does not explain the purpose of 'limit', 'includeArchived', or 'orderBy', nor does it clarify their effects on the results. It adds no value over the raw schema.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'audit events for the organization', implying organization-wide scope, which differentiates it from the sibling tool 'linear_getUserAuditEvents'. However, it does not explicitly mention this distinction.

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_getUserAuditEvents'), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from context.

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