Get stories

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), and the description goes well beyond them: indexes are volatile while floorId is stable, height may be absent on the top story, reservedByOtherUser appears only under Teamwork and only when true, and ghostStory/skipNullFloor behavior is spelled out.

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?

Front-loaded and every clause carries information an agent needs, but it is one very dense run-on paragraph with the return fields crammed inline; a short bulleted split between purpose, return shape, and caveats would read better without losing content.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of documenting the response fields and does so thoroughly, including the displayNumber-vs-index trap and the Russian-template example. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline would be 3; the description adds real value by stating that atLevels converts absolute elevations to {storyIndex, offsetFromStory} and that includeElementCounts counts by home story and is slower on big projects. It stops short of any format/syntax detail beyond the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb + resource + ordering ("Lists all stories (floors) of the project, bottom to top") and immediately enumerates the returned shape, which cleanly separates it from the sibling mutation tools create_stories/modify_stories/delete_stories/set_current_story.

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?

"Call this first for any story-related work" makes the ordering against siblings explicit, and it explains why: element tools place by storyIndex, story names are localized, and indexes shift on insert/delete. It also tells the agent which optional params to reach for (atLevels, includeElementCounts) and their purpose.

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