Get a peer's stories

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

Annotations readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already declare a safe read operation. The description adds the 'active' filter and 'one peer' scope, providing some behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like handling of empty results or pagination.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant phrases. It efficiently conveys the verb, resource, and scope.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is minimal. It omits crucial parameter semantics, especially for accountId, and does not explain what 'active' means or how the response is structured. The core purpose is clear, but the definition is incomplete for reliable invocation.

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%, and the description does not compensate. It vaguely implies the 'peer' parameter via 'one peer', but the 'accountId' parameter is completely unexplained. No parameter details or format hints are provided.

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 'Return active stories posted by one peer' clearly specifies the action (return), resource (stories), and scope (one peer). It distinguishes itself from sibling list_stories by explicitly limiting to a single peer.

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 like list_stories or view_story. The description does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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