listMyLinearIssues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It states the core behavior (read-only retrieval of user-assigned issues) but does not disclose additional details like sorting, pagination behavior (beyond the limit param), or whether archived issues are included.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the essential purpose with no redundant words. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 parameter and no output schema, the description gives sufficient context about the returned resource, though it omits details about the response structure. It is complete enough for straightforward usage, but slightly sparse without annotations.

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 only parameter 'limit' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and names the exact resource ('issues assigned to the authenticated user in Linear'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tool listLinearIssues which likely returns all issues. The scope is 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 implies this is for issues assigned to the current user but does not explicitly state when to use it over listLinearIssues or provide exclusions. The context is clear but guidance remains implicit.

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