tg_stories

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: reading does not notify, mark_read does, it is off by default, and download saves media to disk and returns paths. This is exactly the kind of side-effect and privacy-relevant context an agent needs.

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 well-organized with a front-loaded purpose, a privacy-relevant note, and a clear Args block. The inline tg_view syntax is useful but slightly verbose and could be trimmed without losing essential meaning.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must cover return behavior; it mentions returned paths for downloads and 'entries' returned with the limit. It doesn't fully describe the shape of each story entry, but for tool selection and safe invocation it is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for all four parameters. It explains peer, mark_read, download, and limit with meaningful behavioral consequences for each, fully compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 identifies the resource ('Stories') and the two modes: the whole feed or one person's stories. It distinguishes itself from tg_view by noting that viewing a specific photo story is a separate operation, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'fetch'.

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?

It gives concrete guidance about when to use the mark_read parameter and warns that it notifies the author. It also points to tg_view for viewing individual photos, providing a useful alternative. It does not explicitly state 'use this when you need to browse stories,' but the context makes the intended usage clear.

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