list_steps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses pagination via limit/offset and outlines the full return structure, including optional fields. However, it does not explicitly state read-only semantics or any limits/defaults, leaving some room for inference.

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 well-structured with a one-sentence purpose, a concise Args section, and a detailed Returns section. It is longer than minimal but every line adds clarity, and the information is front-loaded with the purpose.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, all parameters, pagination behavior, and a full breakdown of return fields. Despite lacking error handling details, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret results successfully.

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 schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), and the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, including limit as 'Maximum number of steps to return' and offset as 'Number of steps to skip (for pagination)'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type declarations.

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 opens with a clear action: 'Get execution steps for a workflow from DBOS Conductor.' This specifies both the resource (execution steps) and the scope (a workflow), differing from siblings like list_workflows or get_workflow.

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 does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but it clearly states the required context: application_name and workflow_id. This gives an agent enough context to know when to invoke it (when it needs steps for a specific workflow), though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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