get_user_stories

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only operation via 'Get all' and previews computed task counts, but it does not explicitly state absence of side effects, data scope semantics (e.g., active vs archived), or pagination behavior.

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 an action verb and clear purpose. Every word contributes: 'Get all user stories' defines scope, 'with task counts' defines output, and 'for dashboard display' defines intent.

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 zero-parameter read tool, the description provides essential purpose and output shape (user stories plus task counts). It is reasonably complete, though it could mention sibling alternatives or clarify whether any filtering/archiving applies.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are required because the tool takes no inputs.

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 verb ('Get'), resource ('all user stories'), and additional output detail ('with task counts') for a defined use case ('dashboard display'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tasks_by_user_story and delete_user_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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_user_story_health or get_tasks_by_user_story. The phrase 'for dashboard display' implies a use context but does not provide exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool recommendations.

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