Get run steps

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the non-destructive safety profile, and the description goes beyond that by stating what the tool returns: step IDs, activities, status, timing, and model step IDs. However, it does not disclose potential ordering, pagination, missing-run behavior, or error cases, so transparency is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, front-loaded with the core action, followed by return fields and the parameter source. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and where the required RunId comes from. It could add error/precondition details, but nothing critical is missing for invoking the tool correctly.

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 only defines run_id as a string with no semantic help. The description compensates by explicitly saying the RunId comes from get_message_processing_log_runs, which tells the agent exactly which value to pass. For a single parameter, this is sufficient semantic guidance.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get all processing steps for a message run.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_message_processing_log_runs by focusing on processing steps rather than the run list itself. It also lists the key returned fields, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable.

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 explicitly says it 'Requires RunId from get_message_processing_log_runs,' giving the agent a concrete usage sequence and source for the required parameter. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but given the single-purpose nature and sibling set, this is clear enough context.

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