get_shared_step

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') without any details on permissions required, error handling, rate limits, or what 'Get' entails (e.g., read-only access, data format returned). This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a tool that likely involves data retrieval.

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 a single sentence ('Get a specific shared step'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly states the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 tool's complexity (2 required parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a shared step is, how parameters work, what data is returned, or any behavioral aspects. For a retrieval tool with undocumented inputs and no structured context, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 description provides no information about parameters, while the input schema has 2 required parameters ('code' and 'hash') with 0% schema description coverage. This means both parameters are entirely undocumented in the schema, and the description fails to compensate by explaining their purpose, format, or how they identify a shared step, leaving semantics unclear.

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 states the tool's purpose ('Get a specific shared step'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('shared step'), but lacks detail on what a 'shared step' is or how it differs from similar resources like cases or suites. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_shared_steps' (plural) by indicating retrieval of a single item, but doesn't clarify scope or uniqueness compared to other 'get_' tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a specific shared step identifier, or contrast it with sibling tools like 'get_shared_steps' for listing multiple items or 'get_case' for different resource types. Usage is implied only by the tool name and basic purpose.

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