listMyLinearIssues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Beyond stating that it retrieves issues, it offers no additional context about pagination, ordering, status filters, or whether the operation is read-only. The description is a bare factual statement without extra behavioral traits.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no redundant information or fluff, earning full marks for conciseness.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, but the lack of annotations places more burden on the description. It does not clarify whether the list includes all issue statuses, how pagination works beyond 'limit', or what fields are returned. While the description is adequate for a basic list tool, it leaves some gaps for a fully self-contained explanation.

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 covers the only parameter 'limit' with a clear description and default value (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, 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 action ('Retrieves a list of issues'), the resource ('issues'), and the scope ('assigned to the authenticated user'), which distinguishes it from the generic 'listLinearIssues' sibling. The verb and resource 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 description clearly implies when to use this tool (when you need issues assigned to the current user) and inherently differentiates it from listLinearIssues by explicitly mentioning the 'authenticated user' filter. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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