get_example

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return as 'full step list' and implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Get', but it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, nor does it mention behavior for invalid or missing names. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and the second sentence provides a concise, directive usage hint. There is no waste; every word contributes.

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 one-parameter getter, the description covers the purpose, the prerequisite discovery step, and the return type ('full step list'). The lack of an output schema makes the return description a bit vague, but given the tool's simplicity and sibling context, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already covers the parameter with 100% description coverage, but the description adds practical semantic value by telling the agent to use values from list_examples, indicating the source of valid names (e.g., 'send_payment'). This goes beyond the schema's static description.

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 'Get the full step list for a single named example workflow', which is a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('full step list for a single named example workflow'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on step-list retrieval for a named example, while list_examples discovers names.

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 explicitly says 'Use list_examples first to discover names', providing a direct instruction on when to use this tool and naming the prerequisite sibling tool. This clearly guides the agent on the correct usage sequence.

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