goalstory_read_stories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the purpose ('supporting reflection and motivation') but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, pagination behavior (implied by 'page' parameter but not explained), rate limits, or what the return format looks like. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but provides insufficient behavioral context for a tool with pagination parameters.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a read operation with clear parameters, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by mentioning pagination support earlier.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a paginated read operation with 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (stories structure), pagination behavior (e.g., default page/limit values), error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a tool that returns collections, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain story format, pagination defaults, or relationship between goal_id and step_id). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Access the collection') and resource ('personalized stories created for a specific goal/step pair'), distinguishing it from siblings like goalstory_read_one_story (single story) or goalstory_read_scheduled_stories (scheduled stories). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with goalstory_read_goals or goalstory_read_steps, which access different resources.

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 context ('supporting reflection and motivation') and specifies the target ('for a specific goal/step pair'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like goalstory_read_one_story or goalstory_read_scheduled_stories. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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