linear_getIssueTemplates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the agent knows this is a safe read. However, the description adds no behavioral context—no mention of defaults (e.g., default limit, whether archived templates are excluded by default), pagination, or response structure. It essentially restates the tool's name without disclosing any additional behavior.

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 description is a single, compact sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan. However, it is so minimal that it verges on under-specification, though for a simple list operation this is acceptable.

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 tool's low complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it fails to clarify the scope of 'issue templates'—whether it returns all templates across the organization or only those for a specific team. The existence of getTeamTemplates suggests a scoping distinction that is not addressed, leaving an agent potentially calling the wrong list tool.

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%, and each parameter (limit, orderBy, includeArchived) has a clear description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but with full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not clarify any relationships or constraints beyond the schema.

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 states the action ('Get') and the resource ('a list of issue templates'), which distinguishes it from individual-issue-template operations like getIssueTemplateById. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar list tools like getTeamTemplates or getProjectTemplates, leaving the exact scope (all templates vs. team-specific) ambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for fetching templates (e.g., getTeamTemplates, getIssueTemplateById), an agent has no criteria to select between them. There is no mention of context, preferred scenarios, or exclusions.

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