get_story

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

The description explains that the tool returns content and how include_notes alters the returned content. However, the annotations indicate destructiveHint:true, implying potential modification, which contradicts the read-only nature described. This mismatch reduces transparency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Concise and well-structured.

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?

Provides return structure and behavior of include_notes. No output schema, so description compensates. However, the destructiveHint annotation inconsistency is not addressed, leaving a gap in completeness about the tool's true effect.

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 covers both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds context for include_notes: omitting the '## Notes' section and everything after it, which is not evident from the schema alone. This enhances understanding of the parameter's effect.

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: 'Get the full markdown content and metadata for a single story.' It also lists the return fields (story_id, title, status, epic_id, path, content), making it distinct from sibling tools like list_stories or add_story_note.

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?

Describes when to set include_notes=false ('when you only need current status, goal, or acceptance criteria and want to avoid paying for a long accumulated note history'). Provides clear context for using this parameter, though no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned.

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