epics-search

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('Find'), but without annotations, the burden to disclose behavioral traits is high. It fails to mention that the tool returns a list of epics, supports complex filtering, or pagination via nextPageToken. The behavioral transparency is inadequate.

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?

The description is extremely concise (3 words) and front-loaded with the essential action and resource. It achieves efficiency, though it could benefit from a slightly more informative structure without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (23 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the richness of sibling tools, the description is severely lacking. It omits essential context such as return format, pagination behavior, default filters, and relationships to other epic-related tools.

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?

All 23 parameters have detailed descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no value beyond what is already provided. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Find Shortcut epics' which clearly indicates the verb 'Find' and resource 'epics', conveying the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling read tools like epics-get-by-id, nor does it hint at the filtering capabilities inherent in a search tool.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as epics-get-by-id or epics-list (if it existed). The description does not provide any usage context, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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