get_stories_archive

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral scope that only expired but not deleted stories are returned, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention pagination or ordering behavior.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded and free of extraneous words. It earns its place by conveying the core purpose, though it is arguably too terse and could benefit from additional guidance without becoming verbose.

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?

Although an output schema exists, alleviating the need to describe return values, the description lacks usage context, pagination semantics, and differentiation from sibling story tools. For a simple getter with two parameters, the description is minimally adequate but leaves notable 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?

The schema provides no descriptions for 'limit' and 'offset_id', and the tool description does not mention them at all. With 0% schema_description_coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameter semantics, but it fails to do so, leaving the agent to guess at cursor-based pagination.

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 identifies the resource as the archive of the user's own stories, adding the qualifier 'истёкшие, но не удалённые' (expired but not deleted). This distinguishes it from sibling story tools like get_all_stories or get_peer_stories. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', though the tool name 'get_*' compensates.

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, nor does it mention any exclusions or preconditions. It simply states what the archive contains, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context.

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