list_epics

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'list all epics,' implying a read operation, but omits details on scope (what is the 'configured project'?), pagination, or side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. No redundant or irrelevant information is present.

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 simple tool (one optional param, output schema exists), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter default, but lacks details on result format, filtering, or entity type ('epics'), which could be important for correct use.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that project_slug is a 'Board slug' with a default behavior, which partially compensates. However, it does not define 'board slug' or clarify the relationship between boards and projects.

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 clearly states 'List all epics in the project,' using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling list tools (e.g., list_cards, list_tasks) by naming the resource 'epics', though it does not explain how epics differ from similar entities.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling list tools, explicit usage context (e.g., when to list epics vs. cards or tasks) would help, but it is absent.

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