asana_get_task_stories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but does not specify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned stories/comments. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information, earning its place in the description.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves task stories and comments. It does not explain the return format, such as whether stories include metadata or how comments are structured, nor does it cover behavioral aspects like pagination or error cases. For a read operation with no structured output guidance, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('task_id' and 'opt_fields'). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of optional fields or usage tips. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without extra description input.

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 ('Get') and resource ('comments and stories for a specific task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from similar siblings like 'asana_get_task' or 'asana_get_multiple_tasks_by_gid', which might also retrieve task-related data, leaving some ambiguity in sibling distinction.

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 does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid task ID, or compare it to other tools like 'asana_get_task' for general task info or 'asana_create_task_story' for adding stories. This lack of context could lead to misuse in scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate.

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