check_story

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the engine equivalence and return values (pass|fail|needs-signoff), but does not explicitly state whether it modifies anything or any prerequisites, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and engine, and contains no filler words. Every phrase adds value.

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?

With a single parameter, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description adequately covers purpose, return format, and usage timing. It lacks minor details like prerequisites or edge cases, but remains complete for a simple check tool.

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 coverage for the only parameter story_id is 0%, and the description only refers to 'this story' without explaining the ID format or how to obtain it. Since the schema lacks descriptions, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 tool runs a story's acceptance criteria using the same engine as the merge gate, specifying the verb 'Run' and the resource 'acceptance criteria'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_story or spec_status by focusing on the local check before pushing.

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 explicitly says to use it before pushing to avoid discovering failures at the merge, providing clear temporal context. It doesn't name alternatives but the instruction is unambiguous.

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