asana_list_stories

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

Beyond annotations that already mark this as read-only and idempotent, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: stories are composed of comments and activity log, the text field stores comment bodies, and the result is paginated. These details help an agent predict the shape and behavior of the response. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 three short sentences, each adding a distinct piece of information without redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a useful semantic clarification and a reminder of pagination. It is compact yet demonstrates respect for the reader's time.

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 read-only list operation, the description, combined with the full parameter schema and safe annotations, provides enough information to invoke the tool correctly. It explains the resource type and content, and signals pagination handling. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail on returned story fields beyond 'text' could be useful, but this does not prevent correct invocation or comprehension of the core behavior.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of all four parameters, so the baseline is a 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond the schema; 'Paginated' mirrors the limit/max_pages descriptions. It does not explain how opt_fields interacts with the 'text' field, though that would have been a helpful addition. Overall, the description does not need to compensate, as the schema is sufficient.

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 a specific action and resource: 'List a task's stories' and further clarifies what stories are ('comments + activity log'). This distinguishes it from other sibling tools, as no other tool in the list targets stories. It is unambiguous and immediately tells an agent what the operation does.

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 when to use this tool – whenever a task's stories or comments are needed – but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where another tool should be used instead. With siblings like asana_get_task and asana_list_tasks present, a brief note on when to select this tool over those would improve guidance. No exclusion criteria are provided.

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