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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so "Read-only" merely restates structured data. The only added information is the implementation detail "GraphQL: query projects," which is not behaviorally useful (no pagination, ordering, or result-set limits beyond the schema). With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but adds little.

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?

Front-loaded and compact: the core action and returned fields come first, followed by safety and implementation notes. Slightly redundant because "Read-only" duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation rather than adding information.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is sufficient, and enumerating returned fields compensates for the absence of an output schema. Missing only guidance on ordering/pagination behavior and when to prefer sibling list tools.

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% with a single parameter ("first") fully documented including default and maximum, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("List projects in the workspace") and enumerates the returned fields, which lets an agent distinguish it from issue/cycle/team siblings. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusion or alternative named (e.g., no hint about filtering or how it differs from linear_list_cycles/linear_list_teams beyond the resource). The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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