pws_get_storylines

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

Annotations already cover readOnly and idempotent hints, so the description adds value by disclosing that it lists only active storylines and that lean=true reduces output to heat/status. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the safety profile.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then efficiently adds parameter guidance. No fluff 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?

Given the lack of output schema and param descriptions, the description effectively conveys the main purpose, the filterable storyline, and the lean option. However, it does not explicitly state whether promotionId is required or what the response structure contains beyond participants, leaving minor gaps.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains 'filter one storyline' (storylineId) and 'lean=true' (lean), but does not explicitly describe promotionId, which is implied by 'for a promotion' but not fully specified. This partial coverage earns a mid score.

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 lists active storylines and participants for a promotion, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself by mentioning filtering and lean mode, making its purpose unambiguous even among many sibling tools.

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 gives clear context on what the tool does (lists active storylines for a promotion) and how to use parameters (filter one storyline, lean=true). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the context is strong enough for appropriate selection.

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