generate_user_stories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions creating a markdown file but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it overwrites existing files by default, requires authentication for Figma access, handles errors, or has rate limits. The 'interactive' parameter hints at some behavior, but overall disclosure is inadequate for a tool with mutation potential.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the tool's function and output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp 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?

Given the tool's complexity (generating user stories from design files) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the markdown file contains beyond 'stories, epics, and acceptance criteria', nor does it cover error handling, authentication needs, or file system interactions. For a tool with potential side effects, more context is needed.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the format of the markdown output or how 'pages' interact with the Figma file). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics effectively.

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's purpose: 'Generate agile user stories from a Figma design file' specifies the action (generate) and resource (user stories from Figma). It distinguishes from siblings like 'preview_user_stories' by emphasizing creation of a markdown file, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'configure_figma_stories'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'generate_user_stories' over 'preview_user_stories' or 'configure_figma_stories', nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a valid Figma file URL. The description implies usage for creating stories but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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