get_story_instructions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' indicates a read-only retrieval and the object 'instructions' suggests the output is guidance text, so there is no contradiction or hidden mutation. However, it does not disclose the output format, whether the instructions are static or generated, or any other behavioral details.

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?

One compact sentence with the core action and a parenthetical scope list; no filler or repetition.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is mostly complete: it states what the agent gets, the topic, and the covered areas. The only notable omission is explicit guidance on when this is the right tool versus a story-data sibling, which is already reflected in usage_guidelines.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema is complete at 100% and the tool cannot be misconfigured. The description adds useful domain context about what the instructions cover, which is all that is needed.

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 names a specific action ('Get best-practice instructions' for writing stories), a clear resource (Storybook stories), and the scope (CSF3, argTypes, play functions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve story content or metadata, like get_story or get_story_metadata, by pointing at guidance rather than data.

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 the tool is appropriate when an agent needs authoring guidance for Storybook stories, but it never states explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions or names alternatives. Sibling tools exist for retrieving story data, but the description does not tell the agent to prefer this one over those in specific situations.

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