get_mas_module_step_signature

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It uses the word 'Fetch' implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm idempotency, side effects, or authentication requirements. The description is adequate but could be more transparent about the read-only nature.

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, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence and providing usage context in the second. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 that the tool has an output schema (indicated by context signals), the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately states what the tool does and why to use it, and the input schema covers the parameters. This is complete for a simple fetch operation.

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%, with both parameters (module_id and step_id) having descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, it meets the baseline of 3.

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 the verb 'Fetch' to clearly indicate the action, and specifies the resource as 'MAS module step's input/output variable signature'. This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'score_data' and 'list_models_and_decisions', as it focuses on inspecting step signatures.

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 'Call before score_data' and explains the rationale (to know variable names, types, order). This provides clear context for when this tool should be used. However, it does not mention alternatives or situations to avoid using it, which would make it a 5.

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