check_step_support

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature (no destructive actions) and details the return value structure and edge-case handling. Lacks mention of potential caching or network dependencies, but those are not critical for this simple check.

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?

Description is extremely concise with 4 sentences, each adding value: purpose, return details, edge case, usage guidance. No superfluous words; front-loaded with the primary action.

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 zero-parameter, read-only check tool without output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, return value, usage timing, and edge-case handling. No gaps in essential information.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info as none exist, which is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('STEP import backends'), clearly identifying what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'import_step_file' and 'step_file_info' by focusing on availability checking before import.

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 states to call this before 'import_step_file' to verify readiness. Also describes what it returns (availability dict) and the fallback behavior (install instructions if no backend), giving clear context for when and why to use this tool.

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