listLinearTeams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does reveal that this is a read-only retrieval and scopes results to the authenticated user's teams. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, or what fields are returned, which are relevant for agents relying solely on the description.

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 immediately states the action, target, and scope. There is no wasted text or redundancy.

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 simple (no parameters, no output schema), and the description adequately states its purpose and scope. It lacks detail about the returned team structure, but for a straightforward list operation this is acceptable and unlikely to mislead.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter ambiguity to clarify. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed; the baseline of 4 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 teams'), the resource ('teams associated with the authenticated user'), and the source ('from Linear'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools that list projects, issues, or favorites.

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 phrase 'associated with the authenticated user' provides clear context about when to use this tool: to see teams available to the current user. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the scope is strong enough for simple list tools.

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