Get epic meta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of establishing this as a safe read-only operation. 'List' and 'available in a project' convey non-mutating behavior and scope, though it doesn't elaborate on output shape or pagination.

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 sentences, no filler, with the main purpose front-loaded and the alternative routing included. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter lookup with an unambiguous list outcome, the description is nearly complete. The lack of output schema is mitigated by 'List ... issue types' naming the expected result, and the explicit pointer to get_issue_create_meta covers the main adjacent use case.

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 schema covers projectKey with a clear description ('Project key, e.g. PROJ'), so full parameter documentation already exists. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail, but no compensation is needed because schema coverage is 100%.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('epic-level issue types available in a project'), and clarifies the hierarchy level above Story/Task. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_epic, list_epics, and get_epic_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?

It explicitly names get_issue_create_meta as the alternative for a different need ('fields required to create one'), making the routing decision obvious. An agent can infer that this tool is for discovering epic-level types rather than creation field metadata.

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