get_shared_step

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, so the agent knows it's a safe, idempotent read. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., permissions, response format, side effects).

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?

Single sentence of 9 words, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words; appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks information about error cases or what the returned data contains, which could be added.

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% with both parameters described. The description reiterates 'by project code and hash' but adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3.

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 'Get a specific shared step by project code and hash', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_shared_steps' (list vs get specific) and 'delete_shared_step' (delete vs get).

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 need a specific shared step by code and hash, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., using list_shared_steps first if hash is unknown).

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