List Shared Steps

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond repeating the title. It does not mention pagination behavior, filtering effects, or return format, which could be useful for an agent.

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 sentence of 9 words, perfectly concise and front-loaded with the key verb and resource. No wasted words, every part earns its place.

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 simple listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose. However, it could mention that it returns a list of shared steps (implicit) and optionally note the default pagination or filtering behavior. Still, it is minimally complete.

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%, so the input schema fully describes all 6 parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 action ('list'), resource ('shared steps'), and context ('in a project') with a clear purpose ('to find existing ones'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_shared_step, delete_shared_step, etc., which are not listing.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'to find existing ones' implies usage when searching for existing shared steps, but it does not mention when not to use it or provide comparisons to similar tools like list_test_cases or search tools.

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