list_stories

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

The description adds some context about the return format ('array of {story_id, title, status, epic_id, story_type} objects'), but it contradicts the annotations: annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, suggesting a destructive write operation, while the description describes a read-only listing operation. This contradiction undermines 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by return format and default behavior in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient 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?

Given the tool's complexity (listing with filters), the description covers purpose, usage, and return format adequately. However, the contradiction with annotations creates confusion about behavioral traits, and without an output schema, the return format description is helpful but not fully structured. This results in a moderate score.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents all three parameters (epic_id, status, story_type) with descriptions and valid values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('stories from the project index'), specifies the optional filtering capabilities, and distinguishes it from siblings like get_story (which retrieves a single story) or get_index_summary (which provides summary data rather than detailed story lists).

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 provides clear context for usage ('With no filters, returns all stories across all epics') and implies when to use it (for listing stories with optional filters). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, though the filtering parameters suggest differentiation from tools like get_story.

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