List Epics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context by detailing the response envelope ({ items, pagination }) and the pagination fields (count, current_page, has_next), plus the default page_size. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('List epics'), and efficiently packs response shape, pagination details, and default page size without fluff.

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 read-only list tool with decent annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, filtering, response structure, and pagination. It doesn't mention error cases or auth, but the straightforward nature and good annotations make this acceptable.

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 coverage is 57%, moderate. The description mentions 'optionally filtered by the given query parameters' and gives the default page_size, adding some value. However, it doesn't clarify the semantics of undocumented params like q, status, or assigned_to, leaving gaps that the schema alone doesn't fill.

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 opens with 'List epics', a specific verb+resource pair that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like epic_get, epic_create, etc. It also mentions optional filtering and the response structure, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 states this lists epics with optional filters and provides a default page size, giving clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives (e.g., epic_get for a single epic), but the resource-oriented naming and sibling list make the usage context evident.

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