get_application_engine_steps

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Returns: Program structure with sections, steps, and actions.' It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions required, or whether the tool is read-only. The description lacks transparency beyond what is obvious from the function name.

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 extremely concise with two sentences for the purpose and minimal lines for args and returns. Every piece of information earns its place, and there is no redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It specifies the input and output nature. However, it lacks context such as typical usage scenarios or differences from similar get_* tools, which a more comprehensive description might include.

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 has zero description coverage, but the description's Args section explains 'ae_program: The AE program name.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's title 'Ae Program' by clarifying that the parameter expects a program name. However, the explanation is brief and could include format or examples.

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 the steps and sections of an Application Engine program.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_record_definition or get_component_structure, which retrieve different types of definitions.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, exclusions, or prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate use cases.

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