check_story_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it runs tests in the worktree, reports pass/fail, and explicitly notes it does not auto-merge. This is significant behavioral information. However, it does not disclose what happens if the agent hasn't finished, or any other side effects, leaving some gaps.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It avoids filler and directly states the key behavior. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is optimal for quick scanning.

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 is relatively simple with two parameters and no output schema, but the description leaves gaps: it does not explain the parameters, does not mention what happens when the agent is not complete, and does not differentiate from sibling status tools. It covers the core behavior but lacks contextual details that would help an agent use it correctly in a workflow.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not explain what 'plan_name' or 'story_key' refer to, nor how they are used. The agent is left to infer from names alone, which is insufficient given the zero 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 clearly states the verb 'check' and the resource 'whether a dispatched agent has finished', and adds specific behavior (runs tests, reports pass/fail, no auto-merge). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_story_status or mark_story_done, which focus on status changes rather than checking and testing.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to check if a dispatched agent has finished. It implies the intended workflow (post-dispatch status check) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. Since it gives clear usage context without exclusions, it earns a 4.

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