getSharedSteps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention pagination behavior (limit/offset), potential performance limits, or that results are paginated despite claiming 'all' shared steps. No side effects or authentication requirements are mentioned.

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 concise sentence, bilingual (English and Japanese), with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the core purpose in minimal space.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sparse. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or how filtering parameters interact. For a complex tool with many optional filters, more context is needed for proper usage.

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?

All parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description needs minimal additional parameter info. However, the description's wording 'all shared steps' subtly conflicts with the pagination parameters (limit, offset), creating ambiguity. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves all shared steps for a specified TestRail project, using a specific verb ('retrieves') and resource ('shared steps'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like getCase or getCases by its focus on shared 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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