get_mas_module_step_signature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains what the tool does and what outcomes to expect (fetching a signature for later use). The read-only nature is implied by the verb 'Fetch' and the stated purpose, adding reasonable transparency for a non-destructive operation.

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 with no unnecessary details. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second provides actionable usage guidance. Every word 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?

Given the simple 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the user what to expect (signature details) and when to use it (before score_data), requiring no further explanation for effective use.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only references inputs generically. The schema descriptions for module_id and step_id already explain their meaning, so the description adds no additional value here.

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 the tool 'Fetch a MAS module step's input/output variable signature', which is a specific verb-action ('Fetch') and resource ('MAS module step's signature'). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_mas_modules or score_data by focusing on the signature inspection.

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 explicitly states to 'Call before score_data' to know variable names, types, order, and expected outputs. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name an alternative tool.

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