Get ticket step

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it's a read operation ('Read'), but does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or whether the step is returned in a specific format. It hints at field filtering but lacks detail on what 'applied ticket action' means or if the action is mutable.

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 two sentences long with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose ('Read one editing step...') and adds a helpful optimization hint ('Pass fields to reduce...'). Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has a rich output schema (mentioned in context), so the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the key behavior (reading a step, including text and action) and parameter usage. No mention of error states or prerequisites, which is a minor gap for a complex tool with many siblings.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'fields' parameter by saying 'Pass fields to reduce the returned fields and attributes', giving context not in the schema. However, it does not describe ticket_id and step_id beyond their names, which are clear from context.

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 'Read one editing step of a ticket', specifying the verb 'read' and the resource 'editing step' with the scope 'of a ticket'. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_ticket_steps (list) and get_ticket (different resource).

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 this is for reading a single step, but does not explicitly say when to use it over siblings (e.g., get_ticket for ticket-level info, list_ticket_steps for multiple steps). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so it's adequate but lacking guidance.

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