readLinearProject

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 disclosure. It clearly indicates a read operation (retrieves) and specifies what is returned (metadata and all issues), but it does not disclose potential response size, pagination behavior, or ordering. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is adequate but not extensive.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is perfectly concise and well-structured for its simple scope.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a high-level summary but lacks details on the response structure of the issues, possible pagination, or any limitations. An agent selecting this tool would benefit from more context about the exact shape of the returned data or potential performance implications.

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 covers 100% of the parameters, with projectId described as 'The unique identifier of the Linear project.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, and with such high schema coverage, a baseline 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 project metadata and all issues from a specified Linear project. The verb 'retrieves' plus the resource 'Linear project' is specific, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like readLinearIssue (single issue) and listLinearProjects (list projects) by describing the combined scope of metadata plus all 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?

The description implies usage context: when you need project metadata and all issues together. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives such as listLinearIssues or readLinearIssue, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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