taiga_list_epics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that returned epics include status, assignee, and story count, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether pagination applies, how results are ordered, or what permissions are required.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, scope, and returned fields efficiently.

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 zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It should clarify that status and assigned_to are optional filters and describe return behavior such as pagination or ordering.

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 compensate for three undocumented parameters. It mentions 'status' and 'assignee' only as returned fields, not as optional filters, and it does not explain project_id, assigned_to format, or whether status and assigned_to narrow the result set.

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 gives a clear verb and resource: 'List all epics in a project', and it identifies the fields returned (status, assignee, story count). It distinguishes itself from single-epic tools like taiga_get_epic by scope, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as taiga_get_epic or taiga_list_user_stories.

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?

Usage is implied by 'List all epics in a project', which suggests bulk enumeration rather than fetching a single epic. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when to prefer taiga_get_epic or how to filter results.

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