Story map run status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: state transitions, return fields (pages_crawled, proposal_id, cursor_pr_url), and condition for cursor_pr_url. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, highly concise. The key purpose is front-loaded, and every word adds meaningful detail. No unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers return values fully (pages_crawled, proposal_id, cursor_pr_url) and state lifecycle. Single required parameter, no complex structures; description is complete for the tool's functionality.

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?

Only one parameter (projectId), schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no further semantics to the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score applies.

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 it gets the status of a story_map_run with the progression pending→running→completed/failed, and lists specific return fields. It distinguishes this as a status-checking tool, separate from sibling tools like map_user_stories which initiate runs.

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 after initiating a story_map_run but does not explicitly state when to use or when to avoid (e.g., after completion, or alternatives like get_qa_story_run). No exclusion criteria or guidance on when not to use.

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