linear_list_issues

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

No annotations exist, but the description discloses the return format (dictionary with issues and count) and mentions default project behavior. It does not cover side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs, so transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Description is relatively concise, using a bulleted list for parameters. A bit more brevity could be achieved, but it is well-structured and front-loads the tool's action.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 optional params, no output schema), the description covers all parameters and return value. However, it lacks explanation of how 'configured default_project' is set, leaving a minor gap.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds thorough parameter semantics: explains project key format, default behavior, state filter examples, and limit with default. This compensates fully for the missing schema descriptions.

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 tool lists issues from a Linear project. It distinguishes from sibling tools like linear_create_issue, linear_get_issue, and linear_update_issue by focusing on the listing action.

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 provides parameter details and defaults but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs alternatives like linear_get_issue or when not to use it. The sibling tools list is present but no comparison is made.

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