get_project_story

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains selection criteria (up to max_milestones, all decision events) and mentions the compressed nature. However, it does not disclose error conditions, performance implications, or authentication requirements.

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 well-organized with bullet points and a returns section. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 has one parameter and an output schema (not shown but indicated). The description covers the return structure comprehensively, including a human-readable text field. It is mostly complete but could include when to use it or what the 'compressed' means in practice.

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 description explicitly explains the sole parameter 'max_milestones' by stating it limits the number of milestone events in the story. This adds value beyond the schema, which only provides a default. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates.

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 returns a 'compressed project story' and lists its contents (name, timestamps, milestones, spine file, decision events, human-readable text). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_event' and 'explain_file' by focusing on retrieval of a summary.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_history), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context signals show no usage hints.

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