run_step

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'read step' only implicitly signals a non-mutating operation. It says nothing about the host/port connection requirement, what capture_dir or expect_contains actually do, or how failures surface, which is a real gap for a tool with connection parameters.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the enumerable kinds are placed where the agent will read them first. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than discipline.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves connection setup, marker/capture semantics, and error behavior undocumented, which is inadequate.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies the 'kind' enum values but leaves host, port, marker, capture_dir, expect_contains, and manager_templates entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (Run) and resource (a single read step) and enumerates the three valid step kinds, which lets an agent map the required 'kind' parameter. It stops short of distinguishing this tool from siblings like run_scenario or run_write_scenario_tool, and 'natively' is unexplained jargon.

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 on when to choose this over run_scenario, run_write_scenario_tool, or search_for_steps, all of which appear related. The agent is left to infer that this executes one step in isolation, but nothing states that condition or any prerequisite.

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