get_step_definition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly lists what the returned data includes, which is valuable, but it does not describe matching behavior beyond 'contains the given text,' absence-of-results behavior, or any side effects. The 'inspect before reusing or changing' phrasing implies a read-only operation but does not state it.

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 one dense, front-loaded sentence that lists the output fields and provides a usage recommendation. Every part contributes useful information, and there is no fluff.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, result contents, and appropriate use context. Minor gaps remain, such as behavior when no definitions match and whether results are sorted or paginated, but these do not seriously hinder a correct call.

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 'query' and 'limit' documented in the input schema. The description adds little parameter meaning beyond restating that text matches the query, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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-resource pair ('get step definition') and enumerates the returned details: keyword, expression kind, method parameters, class/signature, file:line, and usage count. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_steps or resolve_step.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use to inspect a step before reusing or changing it.' This gives a clear context for use, but it does not mention when not to use it or point to a specific alternative among the sibling tools.

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