etabs_get_stories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and non-openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that – the ordering ('top story first') – but says nothing about auth/connection requirements or freshness of the 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?

A single compact fragment with zero filler, and the key ordering detail is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the fragmentary phrasing reads more like a schema note than a sentence.

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?

The tool is trivial (no inputs) and an output schema exists, so the definition needn't document return values. The description supplies the one piece of information the structured fields lack – result ordering – for a simple, adequately covered definition.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies. The listed fields (name, elevation, height, master/similar settings) describe output, not inputs, so they add no parameter 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?

States the resource (story table) and its content precisely, and the 'get' name plus 'table' framing make clear it is a read of existing stories, implicitly distinguishing it from the setter sibling etabs_set_stories. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus related introspection tools such as etabs_model_overview, etabs_list_objects, or etabs_list_tables, nor any stated preconditions (e.g. a model must be open/connected). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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