Get Mas Module Step Signature

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds workflow context (call before score_data) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error conditions or authorization requirements. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the tool's function, the second provides crucial usage context. Every word earns its place, and the key action 'Fetch' is front-loaded.

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 is a simple read-only introspection with a complete output schema, fully documented parameters, and safety annotations. The description adds the missing workflow context (prerequisite for score_data), making the definition complete for an agent.

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%, with both module_id and step_id clearly described in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Fetch' and resource 'a MAS module step's input/output variable signature', making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the resource is unique enough among siblings that confusion is unlikely.

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 advises calling this tool before 'score_data' and explains what information it provides (variable names, types, order, expected outputs). This is clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not mention when not to use it or list alternative tools for the same need.

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