getProcedureStep

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get information', implying a read operation, but does not describe what information is returned, whether there are any side effects, permissions, or error conditions. This is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the verb.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the tool's purpose, making it highly concise 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?

For a simple read operation with two well-specified parameters, the description is adequate but not complete. There is no output schema, so the description should have explained the return format or what information is included for the step. It also lacks usage guidance and behavioral details, leaving some context gaps.

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 parameters are fully documented. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema already explains 'procedureId' and 'stepId', the baseline of 3 applies. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 retrieves information about a specific step within a procedure, distinguishing it from the sibling tools listProcedures (which lists procedures) and getProcedureDetails (which likely gets procedure-level info). It uses the specific verb 'get' and identifies the resource precisely, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context such as 'use this when you need step-level details' or exclude cases. With sibling tools available, the lack of usage guidance is a clear gap.

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