Get epic

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

With no annotations, the description appropriately discloses a non-obvious behavior: for team-managed projects, epics are ordinary issues and the tool falls back to the issue API. This adds value beyond the input schema and helps an agent anticipate different response semantics. It could mention error/not-found behavior, but the disclosed edge case is meaningful.

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?

Two tight sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the exact operation and accepted identifiers; the second adds a useful behavioral caveat. It is front-loaded and readable.

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 one-parameter read operation, the definition covers identification of the epic and an important behavioral variation (team-managed projects). Since there is no output schema and no annotations, a brief note about the response shape would round it out, but the current description is still sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already defines epicIdOrKey as an epic key or numeric issue ID. The tool description repeats that meaning almost exactly without adding extra constraints, formats, or examples beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline 3.

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 leads with a specific verb and object: 'Get a single epic by key (e.g. PROJ-1) or numeric issue ID'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from list_epics and get_epic_issues by emphasizing 'single', and includes an explicit key format example.

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 intended use is clear: call this when you already have the epic's key or numeric ID and need just that one epic. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use them, but the 'single' wording and the fallback note give enough practical guidance.

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