get_epic_tree

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state safety, auth needs, or potential performance impact for large hierarchies. The description 'returns' is a minimal behavioral clue.

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?

Two concise sentences: first defines function, second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

No output schema; description describes hierarchy but lacks details on structure (e.g., tree vs list) or handling of large hierarchies. Could be more complete for a tool with no output schema.

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 0%, meaning description adds no extra meaning to parameters. Although epic_key is implied by context, the description does not explain it or include_closed (default false). The schema provides names/types but description should compensate for the lack of coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns the full child hierarchy under an epic, specifying stories, tasks, and subtasks. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_issue or search_issues by focusing on hierarchical breakdown.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when the user wants to see the full breakdown of a feature or initiative.' It does not provide alternatives or conditions where not to use, but the use case is clear.

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