linear_getIssueTemplateById

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the name and annotations imply—no notes on not-found behavior, response shape, or edge cases. This is acceptable for a simple get-by-id tool where annotations carry the burden, but the description itself contributes no additional behavioral disclosure.

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, tightly worded sentence with zero filler. Every word earns its place, and the key information (verb + resource) is front-loaded. For a one-parameter get-by-id tool, this is the ideal size.

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?

Given the very low complexity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, output schema present, full annotation coverage), the description is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is the absence of sibling differentiation and usage guidance against linear_getIssueTemplates/getTeamTemplates, but the structured data carries enough weight that this is a minor omission rather than a critical hole.

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%—the 'id' parameter is already documented as 'ID of the template to retrieve.' The description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. No compensation is needed, but none is offered either.

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 and resource: 'Get details of a specific issue template.' The word 'specific' signals single-record retrieval by ID, which aligns with the tool name and distinguishes it from listing siblings like linear_getIssueTemplates and linear_getTeamTemplates. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is only implied: a 'specific' template suggests 'use when you have a template ID and need its details,' which the 'id' parameter reinforces. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over linear_getIssueTemplates (list) or linear_getTeamTemplates, no exclusionary conditions, and no mention of alternatives. The intent is inferable but not stated.

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