Xray Get Step Library

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further: no mention of pagination behavior, what happens with no filters applied, or the global vs project-scoped configuration distinction present in the schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient but arguably too terse for a six-parameter search tool, which keeps it just under a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all parameters are documented in the schema. However, for a tool with six optional filters, the description never clarifies the default scoping behavior (all steps vs project-scoped) or how filters compose, leaving a modest gap.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema (kind, test, limit, start, search, project). The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('the reusable manual or BDD (Gherkin) step library'), and the kind enum reinforces the two modes. It does not distinguish this from sibling tools like xray_get_test or xray_add_test_step, so it stops short of a 5.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus related siblings (e.g. xray_get_test for a specific test's steps, or the add/update step tools). The two library kinds are implied rather than framed as usage guidance, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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