user_steps

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 effectively describes key behaviors: opens a new terminal window with interactive UI, returns a text summary, and defines step types with their semantics. It could improve by mentioning error handling or UI specifics, but covers core interaction patterns well for a manual workflow tool.

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 well-structured and efficiently written. It starts with the core purpose, immediately provides usage guidelines with examples, then describes the tool's behavior and step types. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The length is appropriate for a tool with multiple parameters and complex behavior.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides strong contextual completeness. It explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, behavioral characteristics, and step semantics. The main gap is the lack of output information (what the 'text summary' contains), but given the tool's interactive nature and no output schema, this is a minor omission.

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%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. However, it does provide context about step types (action, verification, etc.) that relates to the 'type' parameter's enum values, offering some semantic clarification. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Present a checklist of steps to the user for manual completion.' It specifies the verb ('present') and resource ('checklist of steps'), and distinguishes it from programmatic alternatives by explicitly stating it's for manual actions the AI cannot perform. The absence of sibling tools doesn't reduce this clarity.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this tool when you need the user to perform manual actions that you cannot do programmatically,' followed by concrete examples (clicking buttons, logging in, etc.). It also implicitly defines when not to use it (for programmatically executable tasks). No sibling tools exist, so no alternative comparison is needed.

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