list_stories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses output fields, includes the local status enum, and reveals the key behavioral trait that this list is the sole approved scope. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or ordering, but the scope is well communicated.

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 the most important information front-loaded ('All approved stories'), and no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's output and scope.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an existing output schema, the description fully covers purpose, return fields, status semantics, and the concept of approved scope, making it complete without needing to explain return values or parameters.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter clarification is needed. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4 and the description adds no unnecessary parameter noise.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('approved stories in this repository'), enumerates the exact fields and status values returned, and clarifies that it represents the approved scope, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_story or spec_status.

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 phrase 'The list IS the approved scope' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, falling just short of full exclusion guidance.

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