get_user_story_by_ref

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

Without annotations, the description proactively discloses verbosity options and default session behavior. It does not mention side effects, but as a read-only tool, transparency is adequate. No contradictions.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sections for parameters), but it efficiently conveys key information.

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?

The existence of an output schema compensates for missing return value description. The tool is simple, and the description covers all necessary aspects: required parameters, optional verbosity, and default session behavior, making it complete for 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 schema lacks descriptions for all parameters (0% coverage). The description explains the 'ref' parameter as a human-readable number and lists verbosity options, but provides no additional detail for 'project_id' or 'session_id' beyond their existence.

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 it retrieves a user story by its human-readable reference number, distinguishing it from get_user_story which uses an internal ID. The verb 'gets' and resource 'user story by ref' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly advises using this tool instead of get_user_story when a ref number is available, providing clear guidance. However, it lacks an explicit statement of when not to use it or other alternatives beyond the one sibling.

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