list_epics

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond the schema-summarized filter options. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, or any other runtime behavior. With annotations present, this is acceptable but minimal.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the core action and includes only essential filter details. No wasted words.

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 simple list tool with no required parameters and clear schema, the description is sufficient. It does not explain the return format or whether results are paginated, but given the simplicity and the presence of annotations, this is not a critical omission.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates that filters are optional but adds no extra meaning (e.g., valid state values, default behavior of filters). The schema's own descriptions ('Filter by state') are also vague, but the tool description does not compensate.

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 epics' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions optional filters (project/state), distinguishing it from create/update epic tools. This is fully unambiguous.

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?

It indicates that filters are optional, giving context on when to use the tool (when you need epics with optional filtering). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., list_stories for stories), nor specify scenarios where another tool would be preferred, so it falls short of an explicit when/when-not.

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