Get epic

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 nothing beyond that – no mention of authorization requirements, whether the caller must be a group member, or behavior when the epic or group does not exist.

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 short sentence with zero filler, but it is under-specified rather than efficient – the brevity comes at the cost of any identifying or behavioral detail.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema, no parameter documentation and only safety annotations, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine which parameters are actually required to retrieve an epic or what the response contains.

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 0% across six parameters, and the description names none of them. The two identifying parameters (group_id, epic_iid) are never mentioned, and other parameters (title, description, state_event, data) appear mutation-oriented with no explanation of why a 'get' tool accepts them.

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 gives a clear verb and resource ('Get ... epic') plus a scope qualifier ('specific group epic'), which distinguishes a single fetch from a list operation. It does not explicitly name the sibling gitlab_get_epics, but the singular/plural distinction is implied.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of gitlab_get_epics (list), and no statement of prerequisites such as needing both group_id and epic_iid to identify the epic. The agent must infer the calling context entirely.

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