pws_get_storylines

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying 'active' storylines and the default promotion behavior, which goes beyond the structured annotations and helps set expectations about the returned data.

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. It states the action, resource, and key default behavior in a compact and readable way.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one optional integer parameter, strong annotation safety profile), the description is complete. It conveys what the tool returns, the scope, and the default behavior, which is all an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the optional promotionId indirectly by stating 'for a promotion; defaults to the player promotion', which communicates both the parameter's purpose and its default behavior. With only one integer parameter, this is sufficient additional meaning.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('active storylines and participants') and scope ('for a promotion'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like pws_get_state or pws_get_show.

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: it lists storylines for a promotion and notes the default to the player promotion when no promotion is specified. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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