Get Retrospective Step

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only the fact that lookup is by id and does not disclose behavior beyond that, which is acceptable but minimal given the annotations and output schema.

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 single sentence is efficiently front-loaded and contains no filler. It is appropriately short, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

With one required parameter, 100% schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the definition is minimally complete for invocation. However, it omits sibling differentiation, which is important in a large toolset containing get_incident_retrospective_step and update_retrospective_step.

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%, and the schema already explains that the id fills the endpoint path and must be passed as `id`. The description's phrase "by id" does not add meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Retrieves a specific retrospective step by id"), so the agent can tell what the tool does. It does not distinguish the tool from the similar sibling get_incident_retrospective_step, leaving ambiguity about which step endpoint is intended.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_incident_retrospective_step or update_retrospective_step. There are no explicit inclusion, exclusion, or prerequisite hints.

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