listLinearTeams

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds the scoping detail 'associated with the authenticated user,' but does not disclose behaviors like pagination, sorting, or potential empty results. For a simple read-only retrieval, this is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb 'Retrieves' and resource 'teams,' with no unnecessary words. It is optimally concise and structured.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the operation's purpose and scope. The return of a list of teams is self-evident, and the description is complete for its simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds context about the authenticated user scope, which is useful. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 'Retrieves a list of teams associated with the authenticated user from Linear,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like listLinearProjects and listLinearIssues by focusing on teams.

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 clear context by indicating the auth scope ('associated with the authenticated user'), which tells the agent when this tool is applicable. It does not explicitly list alternatives, but no other sibling tool lists teams, so the context is sufficient.

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