plan_epic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool creates an epic, but does not disclose side effects, persistence behavior, required preconditions, permissions, or what response to expect. This is a meaningful gap for a state-changing tool.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load the core action, then give workflow context and a useful cross-reference. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Gives a clear role, usage sequence, and relationship to record_adr while an output schema exists for return values. The main gap is not addressing whether init_project is a prerequisite, but overall the description is adequate for this planning tool.

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. It usefully maps 'why the work matters' to why, 'goals' to goals, and 'how you'll know it's done' to success_criteria. However, non_goals and constraints are left unexplained, and title is only implicit.

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?

Describes a clear action and resource: 'Create an Epic — the top-level container for a body of work.' This distinguishes it from story/task-level sibling tools and immediately clarifies its position in the planning hierarchy.

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?

Gives strong contextual guidance with 'Start here' and suggests using record_adr before creating stories. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use plan_epic or name create_story as the alternative for story-level work.

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