List Epics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'List' signals a read-only operation and 'all epics' indicates scope, but the description does not disclose pagination, result limits, ordering, visibility, or error behavior. The basic side-effect profile is clear, but important details are unspecified.

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 one front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word adds meaning. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation with a single parameter.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, but it leaves gaps around usage alternatives and projectKey semantics. It is minimally viable but not rich enough for an agent to handle edge cases or disambiguate from search-oriented siblings without additional inference.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and only a bare `projectKey: string`. The phrase 'for a project' merely paraphrases the parameter name and does not explain what a valid projectKey looks like, where to obtain it, or how it maps to epics. With low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate but did not.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all epics') with a clear scope ('for a project'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like create/update/delete_epic or list_projects. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you need all epics for a project. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as kanban_search_tickets or kanban_find_ticket, so usage guidance remains implicit.

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