goalstory_get_story_context

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 describes the tool's function but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. The phrase 'gather rich context' implies data retrieval, but without annotations, more explicit safety and operational context is needed.

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 concise and well-structured in two sentences, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function without unnecessary fluff. However, it could be slightly more efficient by integrating the two sentences more tightly.

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 complexity of gathering user context and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the tool's purpose but misses details on behavioral aspects and usage context. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, it should ideally provide more guidance on what the gathered context includes or how it's structured.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (goalId, stepId, feedback) with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying these parameters are used for 'context gathering' and 'enhancing understanding,' but it doesn't provide additional semantics like examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Gather rich context about the user, their current goal/step, beliefs, and motivations to create deeply personalized and meaningful stories.' It specifies the verb 'gather' and the resource 'context' about user data and conversation insights. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'goalstory_read_one_goal' or 'goalstory_read_one_step', which might also retrieve user/goal data.

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 mentions combining user profile data with conversation insights but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used before story creation or as a standalone context-fetching tool compared to other read operations.

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