get_story_context

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly signals a read operation via 'Read' and lists expected data, but it does not explain response shape, error behavior, authentication requirements, or any side-effect-free guarantee beyond the verb.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant content. Every phrase contributes meaning by naming the operation and the returned context fields.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main purpose and return elements sufficiently. It lacks explicit usage guidance and response-format details, but the low complexity makes this acceptable.

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 schema has one parameter, story_id, with no description coverage. The description's phrase 'one Story identity' relates to story_id, and the parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description does not explicitly define story_id format or semantics beyond that implied connection.

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 action ('Read one Story') and the exact resource/scope ('one Story'), while enumerating the returned context: 'identity, authoritative document receipt, current data, revision, and preview URL.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_stories or get_story_rules.

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 use when a single Story's full context is needed, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as list_stories for multiple stories. No exclusions or competing-tool guidance is provided.

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