get_util

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

The verb 'Get' suggests a read-only operation, but there is no explicit statement about side effects, permissions, or data immutability. Since annotations are not provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does not fully disclose behavioral characteristics.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that cover the core purpose and a relevant usage detail. It is well-structured and free of unnecessary information.

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?

The description does not specify the expected format of the 'name' parameter, nor does it describe the return value's structure. The reference to add_step's stepSchema doc is helpful but not self-contained. An agent would likely need to consult other tools or documentation to use this 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 'name' parameter is required but not described in the schema. The tool description implies it is the identifier of the utility, but it is ambiguous whether this is a composite key (groupName.methodName) or just the method name. The 'project' parameter is well-described, but the lack of clarity on 'name' significantly hampers correct usage.

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: to retrieve a shared utility function's full definition including groupName, params, and body. It also explains how a utility is referenced in a step, which helps distinguish it from listing all utilities.

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 when to use this tool (when you need the full definition of a specific utility to construct a step), but it does not explicitly contrast it with list_utils or other alternatives. The reference to add_step's stepSchema doc gives some context but leaves the exact selection criteria implicit.

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