list_steps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly discloses a read-only 'Get' operation, pagination parameters, and detailed return fields, which sets proper expectations about what the tool does and returns.

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 clear first sentence followed by Args and Returns sections. The Returns section is somewhat redundant since an output schema exists, but the overall length is reasonable and the information is organized.

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 all parameters, optionality, and return shape, and an output schema exists to supplement return details. It is missing explicit guidance on ordering, pagination defaults, or error behavior, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward listing operation.

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 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: application_name, workflow_id, limit, and offset, including types and optionality. This is exactly the semantic detail an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 'Get execution steps for a workflow from DBOS Conductor', which clearly names the verb, resource, and context. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_workflows and 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 implies this tool is for retrieving steps of a specific workflow, and the sibling list shows related tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_workflow or list_workflows, nor does it mention exclusions.

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