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, yet it says nothing about pagination, result caps, ordering, or permissions. 'List all' hints at an unbounded read but doesn't confirm it, leaving key read-side behavior undocumented.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the operation and scope arrive immediately. It is efficient, though it is terse enough that brevity shades into under-specification.

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 simple two-parameter read tool this is minimally adequate: purpose and scope are stated. With no output schema, the description would ideally describe the shape or volume of results and pagination, neither of which is covered.

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 100%, so both parameters and the status enum are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only high-level scoping ('for a specific project') and no detail on filter interaction or defaults, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb 'List' plus resource 'epics' scoped to 'a specific project', which tells an agent exactly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from neighbors like get_epic (single) or list_issues/list_stories (other hierarchies), so differentiation is left to inference.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no indication of when to prefer get_epic or list_stories, and no prerequisites. An agent must infer the retrieval use case from the name alone.

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