reach_listAutomationStepsV1

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses a key behavioral detail: an automation with no steps returns an empty list. It also explains the non-linear structure (tree) and how to navigate it using parent_uuid and step_order. This goes beyond a simple 'get steps' and provides useful edge-case and data interpretation information. Although it doesn't explicitly state read-only or permission requirements, the action verb 'Get' implies a safe read, which is adequate for a simple query tool.

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 and well-structured: two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then add necessary context about the tree structure and edge case. There is no redundancy or extraneous information. Every sentence earns 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the return format (flat list of steps), the hierarchical relationship via parent_uuid, ordering via step_order, and the empty-list edge case. It does not enumerate all possible fields of a step, but the mention of parent_uuid and step_order gives a sense of the structure. For a list retrieval tool, this is adequate, though a note on what fields each step contains would make it more complete.

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 description coverage is 100% (both params have descriptions). However, those descriptions ('Profile uuid parameter' and 'Automation uuid parameter') are nearly tautological, adding no extra meaning beyond the parameter names. The main description text does not elaborate on how the parameters relate or any format constraints. Per the calibration, high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, and this description does not elevate beyond that baseline.

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 function: 'Get the workflow of an automation as a flat list of steps.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('workflow of an automation'), and specifies the output format ('flat list of steps'). This distinguishes it from siblings like reach_getAutomationDetailsV1 (which likely provides overall automation details) and reach_listAutomationsV1 (which lists automations themselves).

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 does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but it clearly contextualizes usage: this tool is for retrieving the step-by-step workflow of a specific automation, as opposed to other reach tools that handle automations at a higher level. The mention that steps form a tree and how to reconstruct branches gives implicit guidance on interpreting the results, which aids in deciding when to use this tool. No explicit 'when not to use' is stated, but the context is sufficient.

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