get_protocol_steps

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a read operation ('Retrieve') but does not disclose authentication needs, behavior on invalid IDs, rate limits, or whether steps are returned in a specific order. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentence, front-loaded with action and object. It contains no extraneous information and 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?

For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It could be more complete by noting that steps are returned as a list, whether they are ordered, or error handling. Considering complexity, it is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description is present. The description only adds 'by its protocol ID', which echoes the schema's 'Unique identifier for the protocol' without adding substantial new meaning. Baseline of 3 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 clearly states the action 'Retrieve', the resource 'steps for a specific protocol', and the method 'by its protocol ID'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_protocol (protocol itself) and add_protocol_step (adds steps).

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 when you have a protocol ID and need its steps, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It does not mention that for modifying steps one should use other tools like set_protocol_steps.

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