List Linear issue labels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. It adds the behavioral nuance of optional team scoping, which is useful. But it does not mention pagination behavior, the effect of the limit parameter, or what happens when teamId is omitted. This is adequate given the read-only annotation, but not rich.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the optional scoping detail. There is no filler or redundant text, and every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: listing labels and optional team scoping. The schema documents limit's constraints, so the only minor gap is not explicitly stating that omitting teamId returns all labels, though that is logically implied.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains teamId's role ('scoped to one team') but says nothing about limit, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the name and schema constraints. The description only partially clarifies the two parameters.

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 issue labels, with an optional team scope. This identifies a distinct resource type among sibling list tools, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate from siblings like linear_list_workflow_states. The verb 'List' and resource 'issue labels' are specific and unambiguous.

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 phrase 'optionally scoped to one team' implies a usage condition: use teamId when you need labels for a specific team. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage is implied rather than stated.

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