get_all_stories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the source scope ('feed by subscriptions') but does not disclose potential pagination, ordering, or whether already-viewed stories are included. It does not contradict annotations.

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, concise sentence in Russian that is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words. It directly conveys the tool's purpose without elaboration.

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 simplicity (no params, strong annotations, and an existing output schema), the one-line description is sufficient to set expectations. Minor ambiguity remains around the term 'available' (e.g., active stories vs. archive), but the output schema likely clarifies the structure.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered and leaves nothing to explain. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed; the baseline of 4 for zero-param tools applies.

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 states the tool retrieves all available stories from the user's feed, scoped by subscriptions. This clearly identifies the resource and scope, distinguishing it from sibling story tools like get_peer_stories (specific peer) and get_stories_by_id (specific IDs), though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 a use case: fetching the aggregate stories feed from all subscriptions. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like get_peer_stories or get_stories_archive, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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