goalstory_read_one_step

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions retrieving 'detailed information' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'read' in name), what format the information is returned in, error conditions, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and context. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. It's appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (no output schema), error handling, or behavioral traits (no annotations). While the purpose is clear, operational context is minimal, making it inadequate for confident agent use without additional inference.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter fully documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples of valid IDs or format). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific step' (verb+resource). It distinguishes from siblings like 'goalstory_read_steps' (plural) by focusing on a single step. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'goalstory_read_one_goal' or 'goalstory_read_one_story' in terms of resource type.

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 usage context ('to support focused discussion and story creation'), suggesting when this tool might be valuable. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'goalstory_read_steps' (for multiple steps) or 'goalstory_read_one_goal' (for goals). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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