Get MPL Run Steps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The description only mentions a prerequisite (logging enabled) and implies read-only operation via the verb 'get'. It does not discuss idempotency, error behaviors, or what happens if the message does not exist. Given the lack of annotations, this is insufficient for safe usage.

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 14 words, efficiently conveying the core purpose and a prerequisite. The main action is front-loaded ('Get the individual run steps for a message'), and the prerequisite is placed in parentheses. No redundant information is present. Every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description should clarify return values and potential limitations. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a list of step objects) or any constraints beyond the prerequisite. The absence of output schema places the burden on the description, which it fails to meet.

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 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'messageGuid'. The description does not mention the parameter at all, nor does it explain how to identify the message. While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no value beyond the schema; it fails to map 'message' to the required parameter. This leaves the agent without necessary 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 clearly states the tool retrieves individual run steps for a message, which is a specific and distinct function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_mpl_details and get_mpl_error_information by focusing on 'run steps' rather than general details or errors. The verb 'get' and resource 'individual run steps' are precise.

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 includes a prerequisite condition: 'requires trace/step logging enabled on the flow.' This provides clear context for when the tool can be used. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives, the prerequisite implies that without logging enabled, the tool cannot be used, which serves as a when-not-to-use signal. No exclusions are stated, but the context is clear enough.

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