Get Task Stories

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

Beyond annotations that establish read-only and idempotent behavior, the description discloses ordering ('oldest first'), return structure (array of story objects), and the semantic distinction between 'comment' and 'system' types with examples. This adds substantial value for predicting tool behavior.

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 main purpose, and every clause adds meaningful detail (ordering, types, filtering). No redundant or vague language.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (array of story objects), the meaning of `type` values, and how to filter for comments. Combined with clear annotations and full schema coverage, this gives a complete understanding for invocation.

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 is 100% for both parameters (task_id, opt_fields), so the schema already provides full parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics, but the high schema coverage warrants a baseline of 3.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all stories for a task'), specifying that stories include both comments and system activity, and ordering oldest first. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like asana_create_task_story or asana_get_task_history.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to retrieve a task's stories) and includes a practical filtering tip for isolating user comments. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for different purposes, but the scope is well-defined.

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