retrieve_epic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as error behavior, authentication requirements, or response format. It is a minimal read operation, and the description is neither misleading nor informative beyond the name.

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 a single concise sentence that directly conveys the primary action. It is appropriately short for a simple retrieval, though it lacks a bit of helpful detail that would not hurt conciseness, such as mentioning the required identifier context.

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 tool has no output schema and sparse annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't indicate what the response contains, what happens if the epic isn't found, or why project_id is necessary. The presence of many siblings and a two-parameter schema demands more context, which is missing.

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%, meaning the parameters have no descriptions in the schema. The description says 'by ID' but only hints at epic_id, while the schema requires both project_id and epic_id. It fails to explain the role of project_id or how the parameters combine, leaving ambiguity about whether both are needed.

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 'Retrieve an epic by ID' uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('epic'), clearly indicating the action. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like list_epics and other retrieve_* tools by naming the exact entity type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention use cases, exclusions, or reference sibling tools such as list_epics or search_work_items. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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