decompose_stories

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only says what is produced. It does not say whether anything is persisted, whether the call is idempotent, whether output is returned inline or written to a file, or whether it mutates existing stories. For a 6-required-parameter generation tool with zero annotation coverage, that is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key output characteristic (atomic story with BDD criteria) is stated up front. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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 transformation/generation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description omits prerequisites, side effects, and what the caller receives back. An agent cannot tell from this text whether the tool writes a ticket, returns JSON, or requires a prior PRD step.

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 all 8 parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description only adds the notions 'atomic' and 'BDD Given/When/Then acceptance criteria', which loosely maps to the acceptance_criteria field but gives no new syntax or constraint detail.

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?

States a specific verb (decomposes) and resource (a requirement into an atomic User Story) and even names the output artifact's format (BDD Given/When/Then criteria). It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like generate_prd or validate_acceptance_criteria, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. The description never says whether a PRD or requirement document must exist first, nor why an agent would pick this over validate_acceptance_criteria or generate_prd.

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