linear_list_labels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (list labels) and return type (dictionary), lacking any details about side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior when the project is not found. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus an Args/Returns section. Every word adds value, and the main action is front-loaded. No redundancy or filler.

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 tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but lacks completeness. It does not describe the structure of the returned dictionary, potential errors, or any behavioral traits beyond listing. For a simple tool, this is minimally viable but not fully informative.

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?

The single parameter 'project' has 0% schema description coverage, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: 'Project/team key. Defaults to configured default_project.' This explains what the parameter represents and its default behavior, which is valuable for correct invocation.

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 'List available labels for a project,' which uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('labels') with scope ('for a project'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on GitHub entities or Linear issues/workspaces.

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 the tool is used when you need to retrieve labels for a specific project, with the parameter documented as a project/team key. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though the simple purpose makes this less critical.

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