read_workflow_step

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that: the '(FREE)' cost signal and the specific failure behavior ('structured step_not_found error with valid_step_ids') let the agent anticipate and handle the error path.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the usage ordering and the error contract, each earning its place.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers action, sequencing, and the notable error case. It stops short of describing return structure or pagination, but no output schema exists and the 'full JSON' phrasing is sufficient for calling 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% – both workflowId and stepId are documented in the schema with their source references. The description only restates 'workflow + step ID', adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a precise verb and resource ('Returns one step's full JSON for a given workflow + step ID') plus scope. It also differentiates itself from siblings by naming read_workflow_outline and the patching workflow, so an agent can place it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly sequences usage: 'Use after read_workflow_outline to inspect a specific step before patching it.' This names the predecessor tool and the downstream tool, giving the agent a clear when-to-use condition rather than leaving it to inference.

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