get_epic_by_ref

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes verbosity options and session default, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or disclose any potential side effects. Since it is a 'get' operation, it is likely safe, but the lack of explicit safety traits lowers the score.

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 concise, consisting of three sentences. It front-loads the key purpose and then adds usage guidance and parameter details. Every sentence serves a clear purpose, 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the primary use case, distinguishes from a sibling, covers verbosity options, and addresses session default. The output schema covers return values, so the description does not need to detail them.

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 explains the ref parameter as human-readable reference number, verbosity options with defaults, and session_id default behavior. However, it does not elaborate on project_id beyond 'Requires the project_id.' The explanation adds value but is not exhaustive.

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 gets an epic by its human-readable reference number ('#N'), specifies it requires project_id, and distinguishes it from the sibling get_epic tool by explicitly saying to use this when you have a ref number.

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 explicitly says 'Use this instead of get_epic when you have a ref number,' providing a clear when-to-use guideline and an alternative. It also notes the requirement of project_id. No when-not-to is given, but the positive guidance is sufficient.

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