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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals what each epic shows, the conditional acceptance stage, ordering, and workspace-specific project resolution. It does not specify pagination, exact sort order, or error cases, but for a read-only listing tool this is substantive.

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 front-loaded with the core action and ordering, then gives return-field detail, then the conditional config rule. It is efficiently written, though the enumerated stage list adds length; it is still justified because it clarifies edge-case behavior.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return content, ordering, and default project resolution. It omits exact ordering criteria and pagination, but these gaps are unlikely to block correct invocation. Overall it is adequate and above average.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining that a VSCode workspace config's projectName takes precedence over the API key's default project, which materially affects how projectName resolves.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List epics of a project, in order.' It also clarifies scope by describing the fields shown (progress, plan horizon, active status), which helps distinguish this from singular tools like get_epic and sibling list tools like list_tasks or list_decisions.

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 implies use whenever epics of a project are needed, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with get_epic for a single epic or with other list tools. It does provide one concrete usage context—preferring a workspace config's projectName—but lacks when-not or alternative-tool guidance.

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