linear_getReleaseStages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get', implying read-only behavior, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, pagination, or what happens when filters are applied. The schema adds some parameter context, but behavioral traits are not disclosed.

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 sentence of five words is extremely concise. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy. Structure is optimal for a simple read operation.

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 complexity of Linear's release system and many sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what release stages are, how they relate to releases or pipelines, or what the output contains (no output schema). This forces the agent to infer context from the parameter schema alone.

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 description does not need to reiterate parameters. It adds no new meaning beyond the schema, which already describes limit, includeArchived, orderBy, and pipelineId clearly. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get release stages from Linear' clearly specifies the verb ('Get') and the resource ('release stages'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that create, archive, or update stages. However, it does not elaborate on the scope or differentiate from other 'get' tools like linear_getReleases.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus related tools (e.g., linear_getReleasePipelineById), nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations.

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