linear_getProjectMembers

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavior such as pagination (hinted by 'limit' parameter), default values, rate limiting, or whether archived/disabled members are excluded by default.

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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description should compensate with behavioral notes. It fails to explain the return format, pagination behavior, or what fields the returned member objects contain. The tool is a simple fetch but still incomplete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already states (e.g., 'projectId' is 'ID of the project to inspect' is redundant). No elaboration on parameter interactions or format.

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 the resource 'members assigned to a project', which is distinct from siblings that retrieve issues, updates, etc. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes a 'member' (e.g., users vs. roles) which could be inferred but not explicit.

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 versus alternatives like linear_getTeamMemberships or linear_getUsers. The description does not mention prerequisites, scope, or exclusions.

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