sac_get_story_content

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It transparently describes the polling behavior and base64 encoding return. However, it omits potential side effects, authentication requirements, or failure modes, which are relevant for a composite action.

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?

Description is a single dense sentence that conveys the entire workflow. It is efficient but could be improved with clearer structure (e.g., listing steps). Still, no wasted words.

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?

No output schema or annotations, so description must compensate. It explains the sequential process but does not detail what 'job metadata' contains, nor does it specify error handling or limits. Adequate for a composite tool but leaves gaps.

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 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds pragmatic context for maxWaitSeconds ('raise for large stories'), providing value beyond the schema. No extra meaning for storyId or pollIntervalMs, but overall good.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs an end-to-end export of a story (start, poll, download) and returns base64 bytes plus metadata. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sac_export_story_start, sac_export_status, and sac_export_download by being the composite version.

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?

Mentions default 60-second wait and advises raising maxWaitSeconds for large stories, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this composite tool over the individual export steps (start, status, download) that are present in siblings.

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