list_ready_stories

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the only behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation is a read-only retrieval ('Return stories...') with explicit filtering criteria. It does not discuss potential side effects, but for a list operation the word 'Return' plus the use context are sufficient for an agent to infer non-mutation.

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 exactly two sentences: the first defines the behavior and criteria, the second gives usage guidance. Every word is purposeful and the meaning is dense, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple (one required parameter) and an output schema is present, so return values need not be described. The description covers the core behavior and intended use. The only meaningful gap is the plan_name parameter, which goes unmentioned, but this does not cripple the overall completeness.

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. The description never mentions plan_name, and the schema only provides the name and required flag. An agent must infer from the tool name and 'stories' that plan_name selects the plan whose ready stories are listed. This is a real gap for a required parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return'), a resource ('stories'), and explicit criteria ('dependencies are satisfied' and 'still in To Do'). This precisely defines the tool's purpose and differentiates it from siblings like dispatch_story or mark_story_in_progress, which operate on stories rather than list them.

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 second sentence, 'Use this to decide what to dispatch next,' explicitly gives the context and timing for invoking the tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate.

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