text_getStories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about whether the listing is paginated, what happens when maxResults truncates the result, whether the operation is read-only, or what a returned 'story' contains; the mention of timeout and max results merely restates the schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the operation and scope stated immediately and no filler. It is arguably terse for a four-parameter tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and no return-value description, an agent cannot tell what a story listing contains (IDs, names, content preview?) even though the includeControlChars parameter implies content preview is returned. For a retrieval tool with four optional parameters, the description leaves too much unstated.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description echoes two of them (timeout, max results) but adds nothing beyond the structured definitions and ignores document_id and includeControlChars entirely.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List all stories') plus scope ('in the active document'), which separates it from siblings like document_getPageStories and text_getTextFrames. It does not, however, explain how it differs from document_getStoryPages or text_getContent, both of which sound adjacent.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite several plausible substitutes in the sibling list (document_getStoryPages, document_getStoryPages, text_getContent, document_getPageStories). The agent must infer selection on its own.

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