validate_backlogChecks multiple user stories at once against INVEST criteria, returning per-story reports plus a summary with average score, ready count, total points, and possible duplicates.
Checks several user stories at once: each gets an INVEST report, plus a summary with average score, how many are ready, total points and possible duplicates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stories | Yes | The stories to check |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses what comes back (INVEST report per story, plus aggregate summary with average score, ready count, points, possible duplicates), but it does not state that this is a read-only/no-side-effect operation, nor any auth or rate-limit context.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the encumbrance is that the return-value detail is packed into a dense single sentence rather than structured, but nothing is wasted.
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?
For a simple one-parameter batch tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return contents well enough to call it correctly. The main gap is the absence of any explicit read-only/permission context and explicit sibling routing.
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% and the single required parameter (stories) is fully documented including nested fields, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the notion of checking 'several' stories, which marginally reinforces minItems but adds no format 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?
The description states a specific verb (checks) and resource (several user stories) and even enumerates the output (INVEST report plus a summary with average score, ready count, total points, duplicates). It implies batch versus the singular sibling validate_story via 'at once', but never names that sibling, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
'Checks several user stories at once' hints that this is the batch tool versus validate_story, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives like validate_story or suggest_splits. Usage is left implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.