get_test_with_steps

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: 'always fetches test steps if they exist'. However, it does not cover error handling, performance, or what happens when the test key is invalid. Since no annotations are provided, the description partially fulfills transparency but lacks completeness.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that front-load the purpose and follow with a behavioral note. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or irrelevant content.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides minimal context. It does not explain the return format or behavior when steps are absent. While adequate for basic use, it could be more complete for an agent to fully understand outcomes.

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 single parameter 'test_key', which is well-documented in the schema with an example. The description adds no additional semantic information about the parameter, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed test information with test steps'. It explicitly mentions the resource (test info) and action (get with steps), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_test' by specifying the inclusion of test steps.

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 implies usage when test steps are needed by stating 'always fetches test steps if they exist', but it does not explicitly advise when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_test'. No exclusions or context are provided.

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