list_steps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explicitly declares 'Read-only' and describes the concrete response shape (entity_type, entity_id, total_steps, steps array with id/body/finished/ordering/deadline). It stops short of stating pagination behavior, ordering guarantees, auth/permission requirements, or behavior when the entity has no steps.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: purpose/scope first, then return shape, then the render_markdown branch. Every sentence is load-bearing, though the return-field enumeration is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists.

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 read-only listing tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly sufficient: it covers scope, the render_markdown toggle, and the read-only guarantee. Remaining gaps are minor — no pagination limits, no behavior for zero steps, and the return-field detail is partly duplicated by the output schema.

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, and it partially does: it enumerates the valid entity_type values and explains that render_markdown=True adds a 'markdown' field with a GFM checkbox list and deep links. It does not clarify what 'id' refers to beyond the entity type, nor the default behavior of render_markdown (the schema does supply default=false).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all steps (tasks) attached to an eLabFTW experiment, item, experiment template or item type') and enumerates the exact valid entity scopes. An agent can distinguish it from mutation siblings like add_step/update_step/toggle_step/delete_step without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'List' and the 'Read-only' tag, and the entity_type list tells the agent which entities are in scope. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives (e.g., use add_step to create, toggle_step to flip completion).

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