preview_user_stories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by specifying 'without writing to file' (indicating a read-only preview) and 'Shows first 3 stories per epic' (limiting output), but it doesn't cover aspects like error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but it lacks comprehensive behavioral context for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds critical scope information. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential details without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the action and output limitation, but without annotations or an output schema, it doesn't explain return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. This makes it minimally viable but incomplete for full contextual understanding.

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 input schema already documents both parameters ('file_url' and 'pages') fully. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'pages' interact with 'file_url' or format examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: 'Preview generated user stories without writing to file' specifies the action (preview) and resource (user stories), with the additional detail 'Shows first 3 stories per epic' providing scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_user_stories' or 'configure_figma_stories', which could be related alternatives.

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 implies usage by stating 'without writing to file', suggesting this is for review before committing changes, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_user_stories' or 'list_figma_pages'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity in context.

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