list_stories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it usefully implies a read-only listing and discloses which fields come back. However, it says nothing about pagination, ordering, default scope when projectId is omitted, or permissions, which matter for a list tool.

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, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the practical motivation (finding a storyId) appended. Every clause conveys information.

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?

Because there is no output schema, naming the returned fields is genuinely valuable and covers the main gap. Remaining omissions are pagination and default cross-project behavior, which are minor for a simple listing tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the single projectId parameter is fully documented, so baseline is 3. The description adds that filtering by project is optional, reinforcing the schema's non-required status and clarifying it narrows rather than requires a project.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('user stories'), plus the optional project scope and the fields returned (ids, criteria state, Jira key). This distinguishes it from siblings like add_user_story, update_user_story, and list_requirements without the agent needing to open any schema.

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?

"Use it to find a storyId" gives a concrete downstream purpose, and "optionally for one project" clarifies the scope. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use it, so it falls just below the explicit when/when-not bar.

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