Get test case steps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool works across two case types and that returned step result keys are meaningful for subsequent status updates. It doesn't describe pagination or error behavior, but for a simple read operation the key behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Two compact sentences deliver all essential information with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the secondary behavioral detail about step result keys is placed usefully in the second sentence.

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 single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does, what it returns (steps with description and expected result), and why the result is useful (step result keys). Nothing required to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 already documents the single parameter (caseID) as 'Test case ID / key' with 100% coverage. The description adds a slight nuance by implying caseID can refer to either a test case or a test run case, but this is not expressed explicitly, so the description adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('List') and a precise resource ('the steps of a test case'), and it clarifies what each step contains ('description + expected result'). It also distinguishes its scope by noting it works for both test cases and test run cases, which sets it apart from related getters.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: it applies to both test cases and test run cases. It also hints at the follow-up workflow by stating that step result keys are used for step-level status updates, implicitly routing the agent toward update_test_result_steps afterward, though it doesn't explicitly mention that sibling or state when not to use it.

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