channel_get_step_sequence

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

With no annotations, the description indicates a read-only operation ('Read'), which is positive. However, it does not disclose the return format, any side effects, or constraints. The optional pattern filtering is noted, but behavioral traits beyond that are absent.

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 sentence containing the core action and optionality. No extra words, front-loaded with the verb. Perfectly concise.

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 and lack of output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but leaves out what 'full step sequence' means as output. It could specify that it returns a list of step values or similar.

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 description adds meaning to the parameters by mentioning 'channel' (mapped to index) and 'pattern' (optional filter), which the schema lacks. However, it doesn't clarify what values are valid for index or pattern, nor the data type expectations beyond the schema.

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 the action ('Read') and the resource ('full step sequence for a channel'), and distinguishes from siblings like channel_set_step_sequence (write) or channel_get_grid_bit (single bit). The optional pattern filter is explicitly mentioned.

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 usage for retrieving the entire step sequence, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No mention of when to prefer channel_get_grid_bit or channel_clear_step_sequence.

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