Next steps

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, closed-world openWorldHint=false), so the description's main value-add is behavioral: it discloses scope ('open', 'current milestone') and result ordering ('hard-lever steps first'). That is genuine context beyond the structured fields, though it still says nothing about return shape or emptiness 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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with the ordering rule following immediately. No filler, though the colon-fragment phrasing is slightly dense for an unfamiliar domain.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not characterize what a 'step' contains or how many are returned by default. Safety behavior is covered by annotations and ordering is stated, but the undocumented 'count' parameter leaves a real gap for a tool whose whole purpose is to return a limited list.

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% for the single 'count' parameter (1-20), and the description never mentions it – no meaning, no default, no note that it caps the number of returned steps. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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?

It names a specific resource and scope – 'open steps of the current milestone' – and a clear ordering rule ('hard-lever steps first'), which tells the agent exactly what it gets back. The verb is only implied and no sibling (e.g. get_plan, get_now, get_path) is named to differentiate it, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'candidates for today's main step' gestures at a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_plan, get_path, or get_now, and no when-not or prerequisite conditions. Selection must be inferred from sibling names alone.

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