get-user-stories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves user stories but doesn't describe what 'get' entails—whether it returns all stories, filtered results, or paginated data. It also omits details like authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with two required parameters. It doesn't explain what 'get' returns (e.g., a list of stories, their structure, or error cases), nor does it provide context on how 'cwd' interacts with 'prdId'. For a retrieval tool in a document-heavy environment, more guidance is needed.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between 'prdId' and 'cwd' or clarifying format expectations. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 User Stories for a particular PRD'. It specifies the action ('Get') and resource ('User Stories'), with the scope limited to a specific PRD. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-brds' or 'get-tasks', which appear to retrieve different document types.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get-brds' or 'get-tasks' that might retrieve related documents, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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