list_ready_stories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses non-raising behavior for missing manifests, the intentionally limited return shape, exclusion of in_progress/parked/done stories, and the dynamic/volatile nature of the ready list. This goes well beyond what the name alone conveys.

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 informative and front-loaded with the core behavior. It slightly repeats the dependency condition in the final paragraph ('neither is a todo story whose dependencies aren't all done yet') after already stating it in the first sentence, but overall every sentence adds meaningful operational detail.

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 description covers the exact readiness condition, return format, omitted fields, error/missing-manifest behavior, parameter provenance, and temporal validity. With no annotations and only one simple parameter, this is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly without needing to infer anything.

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 0% and there is only one parameter, so the description must define plan_name. It does so meaningfully by explaining it is 'the plan's name, as returned by list_plans or passed to save_plan/ingest_plan,' which gives the agent a concrete source and provenance for the value.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the stories in this plan that are unblocked and available to dispatch.' It precisely defines readiness via status == 'todo' and fully-completed dependencies, which clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_plans, check_story_status, and dispatch_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?

The description explicitly says to use check_story_status for full story records and indicates this tool returns only enough to choose a key for dispatch_story or check_story_status. It also instructs the agent to call again after a dependency completes rather than trusting a stale list, providing clear when-to-use and when-to-recall guidance.

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