get_story

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the returned fields and the key behavioral fact that the criteria are the approved definition of done. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, potential errors, or authorization requirements, though 'Read this' implies a non-mutating operation.

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?

Two sentences with front-loaded output summary and a clear usage directive. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the key output fields and usage timing, and an output schema exists for return details. It stops short of explaining error/not-found behavior or explicitly comparing to sibling tools, but for a simple single-id retrieval tool it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema has one required story_id with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not elaborate on the parameter, leaving the agent to infer that story_id identifies the story. This adds no meaning beyond the parameter name, so it does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 returns 'One approved story in full' with title, epic, and every acceptance criterion. This specifies a verb (retrieve/get), resource (story), and the detailed scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_stories which would provide a listing.

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?

Explicitly instructs to read this tool 'BEFORE implementing the story,' establishing the intended usage context. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the emphasis on 'approved definition of done' implies this is the authoritative source for implementation.

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