derivation_get_steps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates the tool returns a step list with specified fields, but it does not mention whether it is read-only, how it handles non-existent sessions, or any limitations such as pagination. This is a significant gap for a retrieval tool.

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 concise, with a clear main statement followed by bullet points and a return type. It is slightly redundant in saying 'get all derivation steps' and 'return complete step history', but overall it is well-structured and not overly verbose.

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?

Although the tool has an output schema that may document return values, the description omits any explanation of the `session_id` parameter and does not provide usage context. For a simple tool this might be acceptable, but the missing parameter semantics makes it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema has one parameter `session_id` with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The description does not explain that `session_id` identifies the derivation session to retrieve steps from, so the parameter is left entirely unexplained.

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 retrieves all derivation steps and lists the details included (operation type, expressions, SymPy commands, timestamps). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool `derivation_get_step`, which presumably retrieves a single step, though the plural name implies it.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `derivation_get_step` or `derivation_status`. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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