listLinearIssues

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

With no annotations, the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Retrieves' implying a read-only operation, but does not detail any behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, default limits, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description adds minimal transparency beyond what the tool name implies.

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 that clearly conveys the primary action. It is front-loaded and free of filler, though it could be slightly expanded to include scope without becoming verbose.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but lacks essential context. It does not clarify what 'issues' means in scope (all issues, team issues, user issues), nor does it mention that results may be limited or ordered. The ambiguity with listMyLinearIssues leaves the agent without enough information for confident invocation.

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 documents the single 'limit' parameter with a default and description, resulting in 100% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter semantics of its own, but since the schema covers everything, 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 'Retrieves a list of issues from Linear' clearly states the action (retrieves) and the resource (list of issues), which is unambiguous at a basic level. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling tool listMyLinearIssues, which also retrieves Linear issues, so it lacks differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listMyLinearIssues or readLinearIssue. There is no mention of scope (e.g., all issues vs. current user's issues), prerequisites, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to guess which tool is appropriate.

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