get_test_case_steps

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

The description explains the return structure in detail (normalized scenario, root step, flat map of steps with specific fields), which is transparent. However, with no annotations provided, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or mention any potential side effects, though the name and context imply it is safe.

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 two sentences: the first defines the purpose, the second details the return structure. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant information.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure (root step, flat map, step fields). However, it lacks information about error handling, expected behavior for invalid IDs, or any constraints beyond the schema. Still, it is sufficiently complete for a single-parameter read tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (the only parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema; it simply reiterates that the tool returns steps for a test case. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (Get) and resource (manual scenario steps for a test case). It provides detailed information about the return structure, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_test_case (which returns test case metadata) and get_shared_step_steps (for 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?

The description implies usage (when you need steps of a test case), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_test_case or get_shared_step_steps. No usage guidance, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are provided.

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