jira_epic

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'inspect', 'list', and 'move' but does not disclose side effects (e.g., what happens to removed issues), permissions needed, or rate limits. The `full` parameter behavior is described in the schema but not in the main description.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. The schema contains a longer description that repeats the actions, but the main description could benefit from listing actions or indicating parameter dependencies.

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 9 parameters, 4 distinct actions, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values for each action, parameter constraints, or error scenarios. The low schema coverage exacerbates this.

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 11%, meaning most parameters lack descriptions. The description adds the action list and some details for `full`, but for the other 8 parameters (e.g., jql, fields, startAt) no additional meaning is provided beyond their names and types.

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 the tool's scope: inspecting epics, listing issues under an epic, and moving issues in/out of epics. It distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_issue or jira_search by focusing on epics specifically. However, it could be more explicit about the exact operations (e.g., 'fetch epic details').

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_issue or jira_search. The description implies epic-related tasks but does not state contexts where siblings would be more appropriate (e.g., for non-epic issues).

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