search_steps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns matching step definitions, but does not cover ordering, pagination, matching semantics, or error behavior. For a straightforward search tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single focused statement that front-loads the core purpose, specifies the searchable fields, and states the return value with no wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the main requirement: what is searched and what is returned. Minor gaps like result limits or ordering are present, but the tool's simplicity reduces the impact of those omissions.

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% for the query parameter, and the description adds meaning by clarifying that the query applies to expression text, method, and class name. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Search terms' 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?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Full-text search') and a specific resource ('step definitions'), and identifies the exact fields being searched: expression text, method, and class name. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_scenarios, which targets scenarios rather than step definitions.

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: use this tool to full-text search step definitions by expression, method, or class name. It does not explicitly call out when not to use it or name alternatives, but the scope is specific enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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