get_shared_steps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'gets' data, implying a read operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite 'limit' and 'offset' parameters), error handling, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool with multiple parameters and no output 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get all shared steps in a project'), making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral traits, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly in a complex context with many sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'in a project', which hints at the 'code' parameter (likely a project identifier), but doesn't explain the 'search', 'limit', or 'offset' parameters. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap.

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 'Get all shared steps in a project' clearly states the action (get) and resource (shared steps) with scope (in a project). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_shared_step' (singular) and 'create_shared_step', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list-like tools such as 'get_cases' or 'get_suites' in terms of resource type.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it retrieves all shared steps, but it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., project existence), exclusions, or compare to similar tools like 'get_shared_step' (for a single step) or other 'get_' tools for different resources.

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