List Linear teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the visibility scope (only teams visible to the API key), which is useful behavioral context, but does not disclose other traits like pagination behavior or ordering. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The verb and resource lead immediately, and the scope qualifier adds necessary nuance without clutter.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description correctly captures the core function and scope. It could be slightly more complete by noting that `limit` caps the number of returned teams, but the tool's low complexity makes this a minor omission.

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 schema has one parameter (`limit`) with 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate by explaining its meaning or usage. It does not mention `limit` at all, leaving the agent to rely on the parameter name and schema constraints. This is a clear gap in parameter documentation.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('teams') with an important scope qualifier ('visible to the API key'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like linear_list_users or linear_list_projects, so an agent can immediately identify its target resource.

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 an agent needs the teams accessible to the current API key. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the resource is distinct from all siblings, making the intended context clear.

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