Get Step Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint:true and destructiveHint:false, and the description is consistent. The description adds mild context by specifying what information is returned (description, completion status) and defining what a step is, but it discloses no additional behavioral traits such as permission requirements, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the action and return content; the second clarifies the domain concept of a step. No filler, redundancy, or irrelevant detail.

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 read-only tool with three fully documented parameters and read-only annotations, the description provides the essential return content ('description and completion status') and domain context. It does not explain how step_id is obtained, but the schema already covers that, so nothing material is missing for a capable agent.

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 100%, and each parameter is thoroughly documented with examples and an explicit distinction between card_number and card_id. The description itself contributes no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific to-do step on a card' and names the key fields returned (description, completion status). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling step operations like create_step, update_step, and delete_step by focusing on retrieval of a single step.

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 a read-only retrieval use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_card or list-style tools. It also does not mention that fetching a step might precede an update or delete. The schema parameters provide indirect guidance (step IDs returned when creating steps or fetching card details), but the description itself lacks explicit usage context.

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