jira_epic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that read actions have a summary projection and can be overridden with 'full: true', while mutation actions reject that parameter. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the bare minimum.

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 concise and front-loads the main purpose, but it packs many details into a single paragraph. Breaking it into sections could improve readability, but overall it avoids unnecessary 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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides action-specific details but does not explain all parameters (e.g., jql, fields, expand, startAt, maxResults are only listed without description). The return value is partially explained (summary projection vs raw response), but more completeness would be beneficial.

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 description coverage is only 11%, but the description compensates by explaining each action and its required parameters (e.g., 'get' requires epicIdOrKey, 'issues' requires epicIdOrKey with optional parameters, etc.). It also clarifies the 'full' parameter's behavior in detail, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the verbs: 'Inspect', 'list', and 'move', with the resource 'epics'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like jira_issue or jira_board by focusing on epic-specific operations.

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 implies usage by listing actions and required parameters, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools (e.g., when to use jira_issue for non-epic operations). The context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparisons.

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