list_conditions

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds the returned shape including count and per-condition {index, class, instance_id}, plus an honest disclosure of a capability gap for transition conditions, which is useful context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the return shape. The parenthetical earns its place by routing the agent to the sibling that covers transition conditions; no filler.

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 read-only two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return structure and clarifies the boundary with sibling tools. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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% and both parameters (tree_path, state_name) are documented in the schema, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 is 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the enter conditions of a state") and explicitly scopes it against transition-level conditions, which are routed to list_transitions. An agent can distinguish this from list_transitions, get_condition_info, and add_state_enter_condition 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?

Names the relevant alternative (list_transitions' condition_count) and states a limitation (no full per-transition dump available yet), which helps the agent avoid a wrong path. It lacks an explicit positive trigger ("use this to inspect the enter conditions of a selected state before editing them"), but the boundary is clear.

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