story_trace

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

No annotations present, so description must convey behavior. It discloses the output structure (acceptance criteria, tasks, code links) but does not mention read-only nature, side effects, or performance characteristics. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the main action. Efficient but could benefit from breaking out the components for clarity.

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?

Without an output schema, the description partially describes the return value (QA verdict, tasks, code links). However, it omits how parameters like 'repo' and 'feature' influence results, and whether multiple stories are returned. Adequate but has 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fails to clarify the roles of 'repo', 'story', and 'feature'. It only mentions 'user story' implicitly. This leaves the agent without understanding how each parameter affects the result.

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 it retrieves a 'full thread of a user story' including acceptance criteria with QA verdict, plan tasks, and code links. It provides a specific verb ('trace' implied) and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like build_graph or find_nodes.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. The description only lists output contents, not context or prerequisites.

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