Get epic issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It genuinely adds behavioral context by revealing that Cloud and Data Center hit different APIs and that there is a JQL 'parent = <epic>' fallback for team-managed projects. It omits return format and pagination nuances, but the dual-path routing disclosure is valuable.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then platform routing, then fallback behavior. Every sentence earns its place and there is zero filler or repetition of the input schema.

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 thoroughly covers the API-routing complexity (the hardest part of this tool). However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without expectations for result shape, ordering, or how pagination behaves differently across the two API paths (startAt/maxResults vs nextPageToken). Adequate for basic invocation, incomplete for confident advanced use.

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 60%, with fields, epicIdOrKey, and nextPageToken already documented in the schema. The description adds context for epicIdOrKey by showing how it plugs into the fallback JQL ('parent = <epic>'), but it offers nothing for startAt, maxResults, or nextPageToken. Partial compensation for the undocumented parameters.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'List the issues belonging to an epic.' It then distinguishes this tool from siblings by detailing Cloud vs Data Center endpoint routing and the JQL fallback for team-managed projects, making it clearly separable from get_epic, search_issues, and get_sprint_issues.

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 explains when the tool's internal mechanisms apply (which endpoint per environment, fallback on team-managed projects) but never explicitly tells the agent when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as search_issues or get_sprint_issues. Usage context is implied rather than stated, and no exclusions or alternative tool names are given.

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