get_step

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

Annotations are absent, so description must carry burden. It discloses the constraint that step 8 requires projectType, which is behavioral. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what happens on invalid step numbers (schema handles validation). Lacks detail beyond the basic action.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with action and scope. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 2-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a critical edge case. But it does not describe the return format (e.g., string, object), nor does it provide guidance on when to use this vs sibling tools like get_entrypoint or list_steps. Completeness is adequate but not excellent.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context that projectType is needed for step 8's entrypoint layer, which explains the purpose beyond schema's description. However, it does not explain the meaning of the step parameter beyond its range, which is already in 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?

Description clearly states 'Get the full prompt content for a specific step' with verb 'get' and resource 'full prompt content'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_entrypoint and get_master_prompt by targeting a single step's content. The mention of step range 0–14 and special case for step 8 adds specificity.

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?

Provides clear context for when to provide projectType (step 8 required). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_entrypoint or list_steps, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The guidance for step 8 is helpful but incomplete for full context.

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