IMHO, if we deem it useful for users not to expect the time complexity of a linked list for list elements access to the extent of adding a comment in the glossary, there's no reason it isn't useful to someone who is reading the actual list definition. Moreover, I don't see the reason why someone would read the list glossary entry after reading the list definition.

I believe glossary entries should be a (rather small) subset of the topics they touch.

All of this, of course, if Ammar is not right about list not requiring O(1) time complexity.

Please note that, while interesting, I'm not proposing to document the time complexity in list definition per se, but only because it's already documented in the glossary.