get_story

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

Annotations provide key behavioral hints (e.g., destructiveHint: true, openWorldHint: true), but the description adds value by specifying the return structure, including fields like 'content' as raw markdown. It does not contradict annotations, as 'Get' aligns with read-like operations, though the destructive hint might imply side effects not detailed. The description compensates somewhat but lacks full behavioral context like error handling or side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and efficiently details the return structure in the second. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, return values, and distinguishes from siblings. However, it could improve by addressing potential side effects hinted by destructiveHint or providing more context on usage scenarios, slightly reducing completeness.

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%, with the parameter 'story_id' well-documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, but it implicitly reinforces the need for a story ID. Given high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 specific action ('Get'), resource ('full markdown content and metadata for a single story'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_stories' (which retrieves multiple stories) and 'get_index_summary' (which provides summary-level information). It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 context by specifying 'for a single story,' suggesting it should be used when detailed content and metadata of a specific story are needed, rather than for listing multiple stories or summaries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as 'list_stories' for bulk retrieval, which prevents a perfect score.

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