get_tasks_by_user_story

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It states the core operation (get all tasks) but does not disclose any behavioral details such as ordering, pagination, handling of missing or empty user stories, or whether the response is a flat list or nested object.

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, concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. It gets straight to the point and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description is minimally adequate: it states the purpose and the parameter is well-documented in the schema. However, it does not mention the return shape or any edge cases, and with no output schema or annotations, this leaves some ambiguity about what 'all tasks' actually includes.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter userStoryId, describing it as 'UUID of the user story'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('tasks') with a clear scope ('belonging to a specific user story'). This distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like list_tasks, which is a general listing, and get_task_context, which is about context rather than retrieval.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_tasks or get_task_dependency_graph. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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