get_step

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers none. It does not say what happens if the ID is not found, whether the read is safe/idempotent, what fields are returned, or whether any permissions are needed.

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 phrase is short and front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. For a one-parameter tool a single sentence could suffice, yet this sentence is too thin to earn its place as the entire description.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly the only context available, and it omits error behavior, return shape, and the meaning of a 'step'. It is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds only the phrase 'by ID', implying the id parameter identifies a step, but gives no format, source, or example for the ID, leaving the single parameter largely unspecified.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('step') plus a scope qualifier ('by ID'), but it largely restates the tool name. It hints at a single-resource retrieval (vs. the sibling get_steps), yet never explains what a 'step' is or how it differs from get_task/get_step_history beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this instead of get_steps (list), get_step_history (history), or edit_step. The agent must infer from the name alone, with no stated prerequisites or alternative conditions.

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