List Linear projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output contains ids and slugs and explains why they are needed (Linear lookup requires UUID/slug). Lack of mention of pagination or ordering is a minor gap, but for a simple list tool it is mostly adequate.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences with no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully equips an agent to use the tool correctly: it explains the output format, the use case, and why the tool is needed. No important gaps remain.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value beyond the schema by detailing the return values (ids and slugs) and their purpose, which is sufficient for the agent.

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 it lists the workspace's Linear projects with their ids and slugs, specifying the exact purpose of enabling project_id selection for subsequent operations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are unrelated.

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 implies when to use (when you need a project ID for Linear operations) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. However, sibling tools are sufficiently different that no exclusion is necessary.

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