fl_get_step_sequence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety behavior. The description adds only the notion of an 'explicit' grid and conflict digest; it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as failure behavior, cache effects, or output semantics beyond what structured annotations and output schema provide.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and resource immediately and avoids repeating any schema or annotation information.

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?

For a simple read-only, two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, idempotency annotations, and an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete to invoke the tool correctly. The main gap is the absence of usage guidance relative to sibling read tools, but that is not critical for a focused getter.

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 each parameter has a basic description ('Global channel index', 'Explicit current pattern number'). The description's phrase 'explicit current-pattern/channel grid' loosely maps to the two required parameters but adds little semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('explicit current-pattern/channel grid') plus mentions 'conflict digest', clearly indicating a read operation on a particular structure. It is distinct from the setter sibling fl_set_step_sequenceanding, but the phrase 'current-pattern/channel grid' relies on domain jargon and could be slightly clearer for an agent.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like fl_list_patterns, piano_roll_read_notes, or fl_get_selected_range. The description implies a read use case but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when another read tool might be more appropriate.

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