Get Epic

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true). It merely restates the title in a slightly expanded form. There is no mention of response handling, error cases, or the verbosity option's effect, which could be useful behavioral context.

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 unnecessary words. It is concise and immediately communicates the tool's function.

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?

This is a low-complexity, read-only tool with a well-documented schema and annotations. The description sufficiently conveys the core purpose, and the schema covers parameter nuances like verbosity. It relies on the schema for details, which is acceptable given the rich schema and annotations. A mention of what the response represents (the epic object) could add a bit more completeness, but it is not essential.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters: 'id' is described as 'Resource id' and 'verbosity' has a detailed explanation of its values and behavior. The tool description itself does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('epic'), and specifies the retrieval mechanism ('by id'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like epic_list (which lists multiple epics) and epic_create/update/delete (mutations).

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: use this when you have a single epic id and need that epic's details. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like epic_list for browsing or searching. No exclusions or alternatives are provided, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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