goalstory_read_scheduled_stories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list with pagination and notes the timezone handling (UTC storage, requiring conversion), adding useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover other aspects like error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a read operation.

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 an important note. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. It could be slightly more structured but remains efficient and clear.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, pagination, and timezone detail, but lacks information on return format, error handling, or authentication. For a read tool with two parameters, it's adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral context.

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 fully documents the two parameters (page and limit). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as default values or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 action ('Get a list') and resource ('scheduled story generation configurations for the user'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like goalstory_read_stories by specifying 'scheduled' configurations, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all read siblings.

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 implies usage for retrieving scheduled configurations, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like goalstory_read_stories or goalstory_read_one_story. It mentions optional pagination, which hints at context for large datasets, but lacks when-not or prerequisite information.

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