intelligent_decompose_story

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that the tool returns a prompt and does not itself perform task creation, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether it saves anything) or prerequisites, though the absence of such mentions likely indicates a pure generation operation.

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 sentences and gets to the point quickly. The opening 'INTELLIGENT WORKFLOW' is somewhat promotional, but the rest is informative without unnecessary verbosity. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description correctly explains the return value ('Returns a prompt'). It also covers the workflow (Claude Code will use Grep/Glob/Read). For a prompt-generation tool with only two parameters, this is largely complete, though it could briefly mention the structure of the returned prompt.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—'REAL project context' hints at the role of projectId, but it does not clarify format or additional semantics. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it generates a structured prompt for Claude Code to analyze the codebase and decompose a user story. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_task or save_story_decomposition, which directly manipulate tasks.

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 context ('based on REAL project context' and 'before creating tasks') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_task or save_story_decomposition. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so the guidance is only implied.

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