goalstory_read_steps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses the ordering mechanism ('ordered by their 'order_ts' timestamp in ascending order'), sequencing logic ('earliest timestamp is step 1'), and system-maintained ordering. However, it doesn't mention potential errors, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving some gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by important ordering details. Every sentence earns its place by providing critical information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the ordering behavior and resource scope. However, it lacks details on error conditions, response format, or authentication requirements, which would be helpful for a read operation with pagination parameters.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (goal_id, page, limit). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining pagination behavior or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Access the action plan') and resource ('for a specific goal, showing all steps in the journey toward achievement'), distinguishing it from siblings like goalstory_read_one_step (single step) and goalstory_read_goals (goals list). It precisely communicates what the tool does without redundancy.

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 by specifying it retrieves steps for a goal, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like goalstory_read_one_step or goalstory_read_goals. It provides clear operational context but lacks explicit comparative guidance with sibling tools.

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