channel_get_step_params

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it is a read operation and that it 'Returns one row per active step,' which gives some return-shape context. However, it does not disclose how steps filtering, the active_only flag, or the default params affect behavior, nor what happens when no steps are active.

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 compact, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence carries information: the resource being read, the allowed parameter values with defaults, and the return shape. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits the meaning of 'index', 'steps', and 'active_only', and only vaguely describes the return as 'one row per active step.' An agent would need additional inference or external knowledge to call this correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It only explains the 'params' parameter by enumerating valid values and defaults; 'index', 'steps', and 'active_only' are left undocumented in both schema and description. This leaves the agent guessing about three of four parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Read per-step graph-editor values for a channel in the current pattern.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling setters like channel_set_step_params and from other channel getters like channel_get_step_sequence, which reads a different kind of data.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Read' and by the sibling name channel_set_step_params, but the description never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions, preconditions, or comparison to related getters, so the agent has to infer the intended context.

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