fetch_stories

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 mentions 'optional filters' but doesn't describe key behaviors like pagination defaults (implied by parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, error handling). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List stories') and enumerates parameters without unnecessary words. Every part serves a purpose, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., grouping parameters by function).

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination behavior, error cases), doesn't explain parameter meanings, and provides no output information. For a list operation with many filters, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 description lists 6 of the 7 parameters by name, adding value beyond the schema which has only 29% description coverage (only 'per_page' and 'page' have descriptions). However, it doesn't explain what these parameters mean (e.g., what 'with_slug' or 'is_startpage' do), so it partially compensates but doesn't fully bridge the coverage gap.

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 ('List') and resource ('stories'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_story' (which fetches a single story) or 'fetch_activity_log' (which lists different resources), so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like retrieving multiple stories versus a single one (using 'get_story'), or how it differs from other list operations like 'fetch_assets'. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references.

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