list_work_item_test_steps

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

With readOnlyHint=true already in annotations, the description adds behavioral context beyond safety: it states that the output is Markdown cells and that configured column keys and row order are preserved. It does not contradict the annotation and adds useful detail about output formatting and ordering behavior.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a behavioral guarantee and a clear pointer to alternatives. Every sentence 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?

The tool has an output schema and a readOnly annotation, so the description does not need to detail return values or safety. It covers purpose, ordering behavior, and sibling disambiguation. The main gap is the lack of guidance on pagination parameters, but the schema names and constraints partially fill that.

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 description coverage is only 50%; project_id and work_item_id have descriptions, but page_size and page_number are undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description does not explain pagination semantics or otherwise compensate for the missing parameter descriptions, so it adds little value beyond the existing structured fields.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List a work item's Test Steps table as Markdown cells.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly pointing to get_work_item and read_work_item for metadata or body content.

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 provides an explicit when-not-to-use instruction: 'For work-item metadata or body, use get_work_item or read_work_item instead.' This gives the agent a clear routing rule and names the alternatives, satisfying the highest bar for this dimension.

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