list_epics

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

No annotations exist, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions verbosity and session handling, but fails to explicitly state that the operation is read-only, idempotent, or safe. No side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits are noted.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. Each sentence adds relevant information. Could be improved by front-loading the verbosity details or grouping related facts.

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?

The description covers basic functionality, id/ref fields, verbosity, and session. But it omits details on pagination, sorting, filter structure, and does not reference the output schema. Given the tool's complexity (4 params, output schema), it is adequate but not thorough.

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 description adds moderate value beyond the schema by explaining verbosity levels and session default behavior. However, the 'filters' parameter is mentioned but not detailed, and with 0% schema coverage, more elaboration would help.

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 it lists epics within a specific project, specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling list tools (e.g., list_issues, list_tasks) nor mention unique aspects like scope restrictions.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are provided. The description only implies usage via 'within a specific project'.

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