I'm not sure I follow on the "extra step" bit. The DM describes that the door is locked (presumably among several other details in the room) and the player decides whether their rogue may or may not try to pick it. That's not my job as DM to describe what the PC wants to do. Not at our table, anyway.
Based on what the PC wants to do, a check might be called. The possible subsequent roll doesn't affect what they want to do, the roll determines the outcome of what they are trying to do. If the player describes their Rogue as trying to pick a lock with their lockpicks, and they fail a called check, I'm not going to narrate anything to do with a hammer and chisel. Ever. Is there something I've written that makes you think that could be a possibility?
In my game it can be as simple as
DM: "... the door is locked"
Player: "20 to open"
DM: "You silently pick the lock, what do you do?"
instead of
DM: "... the door is locked"
Player: "Can I pick the lock?"
DM: "Roll a thieve's tools check"
Player: "20"
DM: "You silently pick the lock, what do you do?"
Either could happen in my game, the bolded is what I'm talking about that people add (and some people insist it
must be added). It's just extra back and forth that I don't get why people require it. I know that the thief PC is doing, the player knows what their character is doing.
In most cases if a check wasn't required, it's not going to matter what they roll.
DM: "... the door is locked"
Player: "20 to open"
DM: "It was a cheap lock, you could have done it in your sleep. You silently pick the lock, what do you do?"
instead of
DM: "... the door is locked"
Player: "Can I pick the lock?"
DM: "It's a simple lock, no roll required. You silently pick the lock, what do you do?"
Of course if the roll is required for other reasons than opening the lock then the first example is what happens anyway.
If in either style the player ends up having to roll a D20, the only thing that is added is the player basically asking "may I get a skill check I know you're going to ask for anyway".
Sounds good.
At our table, the player isn't asking for checks so they don't have to worry about what they would "add for description" for any particular skill. The player just describes what their character is doing in the fiction: "My character is thinking back to their training as a wizard's apprentice/smuggler/folk hero/whatever, does she recognize any of the symbology in the mural?"
Whereas in mine it would be "Arcana to know what these symbols mean?" or whatever. Knowledge checks are a bit different, usually the player will have to ask for applicable skill. I never require them to explain why they have arcana, history or whatever, because the answer is always going to be some variation of "Because of my training and background". I can't think of any way I'd describe a knowledge check in more ways than that one explanation so why bother? If someone is a sailor they may remind me of that when trying to remember something about the history of a ship, but that's adding additional qualifier to the check I may not remember.
If the outcome is uncertain and there is a meaningful consequence for failure, "the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task" (PHB p 174) and calls for a check.
I just shortcut it because I don't care and my players know how to play the game. Knowledge checks are the exception to the general rule.