asana_get_task_stories

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the only source of behavioral info. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not disclose details like permissions required, pagination, ordering, or the structure of returned stories. This falls short of the burden placed on descriptions when annotations are absent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of nine words, directly stating the tool's purpose without any filler. It earns its place.

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?

While the description is clear, it is minimal. It lacks any usage guidance, exclusions, or behavioral context beyond the basic action, and there is no output schema to clarify return values. For a tool with no annotations, this is inadequate.

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 description adds no semantic information about parameters beyond the schema. The schema already fully documents task_id and opt_fields with clear descriptions, so with 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with clear objects 'comments and stories' and scope 'for a specific task'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like asana_get_task (which retrieves the task itself) and asana_create_task_story (which creates a story).

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states its function without mentioning exclusions or alternative tools for related operations, such as asana_get_task for task details.

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