alm_get_run_steps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses sorting and return structure but omits potential side effects, permissions, or limitations. The behavioral traits are adequately but not exhaustively 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?

The description is concise with just three sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then provides usage guidance, and ends with parameter and return details. 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 tool, the description covers the return structure and usage context. It lacks details on errors or permissions but is sufficient given the tool's simplicity and no output schema.

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 single parameter 'test_run_id' is described as 'ALM ID of the run', adding clear meaning beyond the schema's minimal typing. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates well.

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 gets all run steps for a test run, sorted by step order. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('run steps'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools that add steps or execute tests.

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 advises using the returned step IDs to map evidence before calling alm_update_run_step or alm_attach_to_entity, providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the usage guidance is helpful.

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