tealfabric_get_process_step

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the read itself. It says nothing about what happens if the step_id is invalid or missing, whether permissions or process scoping apply, or what the response contains.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient but so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than optimal concision.

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 simple (one required param, no nesting), but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least sketch the returned step shape or failure behavior. As written, an agent knows only the name, the key, and that it is a lookup.

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%, so the single step_id parameter is already documented structurally; the description only repeats "by step_id". It adds no format, sourcing, or example detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 states a specific verb ("Get") and resource ("a single process step") plus the lookup key (step_id), which clearly separates it from list_process_steps. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from "single" rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should be called when a step_id is already known and the full list is not needed. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to tealfabric_list_process_steps as the alternative.

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