listLinearIssues

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

No annotations are present, and the description simply says 'Retrieves a list of issues,' which restates the purpose rather than disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the list includes all issues, only accessible ones, archived issues, or any default ordering or pagination behavior.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, but it is so minimal that it adds little beyond the tool name, making it under-specified rather than efficiently complete.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and the presence of a closely related sibling tool (listMyLinearIssues), the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the exact set of issues returned, leaving the agent without enough context to select the tool correctly.

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 input schema fully describes the single 'limit' parameter with its default value, achieving 100% description coverage. The description adds no further parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves a list of issues from Linear, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it fails to differentiate from sibling tools like listMyLinearIssues, leaving ambiguity about scope (all issues vs. only the user's issues).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as listMyLinearIssues or readLinearIssue. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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