List Linear issues

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

The annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which covers the read-only nature, so the description doesn't need to restate that. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as default limit (20), max limit (100), or that includeArchived defaults to false, which are important for setting expectations. It also does not describe the return format (e.g., list of issue objects), but given the readOnlyHint and no output schema, a bit more behavioral context (e.g., pagination) would be useful. The description doesn't contradict the annotations.

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 efficient: two sentences that pack key usage details without fluff. It front-loads the core function (list issues with filters) and then provides targeted guidance on special values. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it's concise enough and every sentence adds value.

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?

With 10 parameters, no required params, and no output schema, the description covers the key decision points (filters and special values) but leaves gaps. It doesn't mention default limit, pagination, or what the response looks like. Given the complexity (many filters), the description should explain how filters combine (AND vs OR) and the precedence of state vs stateType. It's adequate for basic use but not complete for advanced filtering scenarios.

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 only 30% (3 out of 10 parameters have descriptions: limit, state, assigneeId). The description adds semantics for assigneeId ('me' special value) and state vs stateType, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the relationship among stateId, state, stateType, or that stateType is an enum. While the description helps for the most ambiguous parameters, it doesn't fully compensate for the 70% of parameters with no description (e.g., teamId, projectId, cycleId are clear by name, but labelId/stateId are less so).

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's purpose: 'List issues with optional ... filters.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('issues'), and enumerates the filter dimensions (team, project, cycle, assignee, state, label), which distinguishes it from siblings like linear_get_issue (single issue) or linear_search_issues (text-based search).

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 explicit usage guidance, including how to use special values: 'Pass assigneeId='me' for the current user' and 'pass state for an exact state name such as 'In Review', or stateType for backlog|unstarted|started|completed|canceled.' This helps the agent choose between state and stateType, which is crucial given both parameters exist. It also implies when to use this tool vs. linear_search_issues (for structured filtering rather than text search).

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