list_stories

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the tool returns metadata only and not full content, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, pagination, or side effects. For a list operation this is acceptable, but there is room for more explicit safety language.

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 sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately compact, though its brevity comes at the cost of missing parameter and usage context. Still, every word contributes to the meaning.

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 one-sentence description is inadequate given five undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The agent lacks information about filtering behavior, pagination, return structure, and how this tool relates to search_stories. A more complete description would explain at least the key parameters and the intended use case.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions none of the five parameters (tags, limit, query, offset, category). The agent has no way to know what these parameters do, how they interact, or whether any are required. The description fails to compensate for the schema's total lack of documentation.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('Story Book entries'), and a clear scope ('metadata only, no full content'). This distinguishes it from get_story, which presumably returns full content, but it does not explicitly differentiate from search_stories, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 like search_stories or get_story. There is no mention of exclusions, conditions, or recommended use cases, leaving the agent to infer the intended selection criteria.

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