List story executions

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

With no annotations, the description declares read-only behavior and documents the empty-list case when tests haven't been run. This adds essential behavioral context, though it could mention any auth requirements or rate limits.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no filler. Each sentence adds value: purpose, empty-list behavior, and safety profile.

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?

For a list tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys return values (status, cycle, date) and the empty-list case. The read-only annotation further clarifies expectations.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with a description for issueKey. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns test executions linked to a Jira issue, specifying the output includes status, cycle, and date. The phrase 'focused pass/fail view' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_story_test_cases, which likely return test cases themselves.

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 implies usage for viewing pass/fail status of test executions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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