readLinearProject

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It does state a key behavioral trait: it returns 'all issues' (indicating no pagination or filtering). However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any required permissions, or potential performance implications of retrieving all issues.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and scope. There is no wasted verbiage.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description adequately covers the core behavior and result contents. It does not explain the return structure, but the absence of an output schema makes that a minor gap. It is complete enough for most use cases.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with projectId well described as 'The unique identifier of the Linear project.' The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond saying 'specified Linear project.' Therefore, baseline 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 identifies the action ('Retrieves') and the resource ('specified Linear project'), and specifies the full scope: 'project metadata and all issues.' This distinguishes it from siblings like listLinearProjects (lists projects) and listLinearIssues (lists 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 both project metadata and its issues in one call. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like readLinearIssue or listLinearIssues, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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