linear_getTeamTemplates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the name—no mention of pagination, ordering, or archived inclusion, but these are already in the schema. It does not contradict annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It precisely conveys the tool's core action and scope.

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 schema covers all parameters and an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return types. However, it is minimal and offers no extra context (e.g., typical use cases, relationship to team labels or issue templates). It meets the minimum for a simple read operation but doesn't enhance understanding beyond the structured 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%, so each parameter has explicit meaning in the schema. The description provides no additional parameter context, which is acceptable given the schema already documents all four parameters.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'templates' scoped to a specific team, making the action and target obvious. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like linear_getIssueTemplates or linear_getProjects, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself in wording.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites or typical scenarios. The single sentence implies usage but leaves the agent to infer when this read operation is appropriate.

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