jira_get_epic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It declares the operation is 'read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose outcomes for missing keys, authentication needs, or other potential behaviors beyond the basic nature.

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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the essential information, achieving high efficiency.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the core functionality. Minor omissions include no guidance on error cases or required permissions, but overall it suffices given low complexity.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. The phrase 'by key/id' clarifies that epic_key accepts either a key or an ID, which adds value beyond the schema's 'string' type. However, it does not specify the exact format or provide examples.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Jira epic', and specifies retrieval by key/id. It also includes 'read-only' to distinguish from modification tools, aligning with siblings like jira_get_issue and jira_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?

The description implies usage when needing epic details, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like jira_get_epic_issues or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It lacks explicit alternatives or context.

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