list_request_steps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does convey that the operation is a list (implying non-mutating) and provides useful output details: ordering and returned fields. However, it does not mention error cases, authorization requirements, or whether the response is an array, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 one efficient, front-loaded sentence. It opens with the core action and scope, then lists the specific fields returned. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it specifies scope, ordering, and returned fields. It lacks explicit handling guidance for edge cases like empty results or invalid request IDs, but these are minor for this tool's simplicity.

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 a single requestId with 0% description coverage. The description's phrase 'for a request' vaguely ties requestId to the request being queried, which provides some meaning beyond the raw schema. Still, it does not explicitly define requestId, its format, or how it relates to other request identifiers, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 all RequestSteps'), the target resource ('RequestSteps for a request'), and the ordering ('in order'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_service_requests, which list requests rather than individual steps, and from advance_step, which mutates a step.

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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used whenever ordered request steps are needed.

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