get_test_scenario_steps

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that steps contain full httpApiCase details, but does not cover permissions, rate limits, or any potential side effects. The tool is read-only, but that is not explicitly stated.

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 sentences, concise and front-loaded with the key action and result. Every word adds value; no fluff.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It could be improved by mentioning if the steps are ordered or what a typical response looks like, but it is complete enough.

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 has 100% coverage with a clear description for scenarioId. The tool description adds context about the steps' content but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema for the parameter itself.

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 steps (API calls) for a test scenario and specifies that each step contains the full httpApiCase with parameters, auth, and request details. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_test_scenario_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 it should be used to retrieve steps, but no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_test_case or get_test_data. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are mentioned.

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