arm_get_deployment_stories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the HTTP GET method (implying read-only) and the optional iteration scoping, but does not disclose potential response format, pagination, or permission requirements. It adds some context but is not thorough.

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 compact: two short sentences, front-loaded with the endpoint and then the purpose. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 read-only GET with full parameter schema coverage, the description covers the essential purpose and optional scoping. It does not describe the return structure (e.g., list shape), but given no output schema and low complexity, this is a minor gap. It is adequate for an agent to select and call the tool confidently.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a small nuance by linking the iterationNumber parameter to the 'optionally scoped to an iteration' phrase, but this is largely redundant with the schema's 'Optional deployment iteration number'.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieves') and a clear resource ('Jira stories and commit traceability for a deployment'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like arm_get_deployment_components or arm_get_deployment_test_coverage. The optional iteration scoping further clarifies its scope.

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 when to use this tool (when deployment stories/traceability are needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The sibling list provides context but the description itself offers no exclusion guidance.

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