List epics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' and 'including whether each one is done' convey a read-only intent and a useful output field. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or how filtering affects the result beyond what the schema already implies.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds meaning: the verb, the resource, the scoping to a board, and the done-status detail.

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?

Adequate for a simple board-level list operation: the required boardId is easily inferable and the done status is highlighted. The lack of an output schema, pagination guidance, and explicit routing to get_epic or get_epic_issues leaves moderate gaps.

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 only 50%: startAt and maxResults are not described in the schema, and the description does not compensate for them. It only reinforces the board scoping and done status already visible in schema fields.

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 a specific action (List), a resource (epics), and a scope (on a board), and adds a concrete output characteristic (whether each one is done). This differentiates it from singular get_epic and mutating create_epic.

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 gives clear context: it is the board-level listing tool for epics. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_epic or explain when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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