linear_project_updates_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the semantic framing of what a 'project update' is, but says nothing about pagination behavior, default page size, or archived-update handling that an agent would want to know when iterating results.

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?

Two tight sentences with no waste; the resource definition is front-loaded and the usage hint follows. The em-dash gloss is a small but justified addition that earns its place by defining a domain term.

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 read-only, annotation-covered list tool with no output schema and a fully documented parameter schema, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually and how to scope it. Only pagination/iteration guidance is absent, and that is largely handled by the schema's cursor fields.

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 description coverage is 100%, including the filter, pagination (after/first), orderBy, and includeArchived fields, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description only echoes the project-filtering idea, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what is already documented.

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?

Specific verb ('Read') plus a precisely named resource ('status updates posted on projects'), with a clarifying gloss ('the periodic on track, here is what moved notes') that disambiguates it from sibling list tools like linear_issues_list and linear_initiatives_list.

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 second sentence implies the primary usage pattern ('Filter by project for one project's history'), which is helpful context. However, it names no alternative tools and gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so usage is only implied rather than stated.

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