get_conditions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that answers come from the session journal, so earlier states remain readable even after sta died. That persistence/source detail is genuinely useful behavioral context. It does not mention permissions, cost, or error behavior, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the actionable usage rule and the persistence caveat; little waste. The enumeration is dense and the line-break artifact mid-sentence slightly hurts flow, but overall it is efficient.

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-value explanation is not strictly required, yet the description still conveys the content shape and the crucial `state` usage rule plus journal-backed persistence. For a one-parameter read tool this is close to complete, with only edge details (valid state range, post-restart behavior) missing.

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% for the single `state` parameter, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains to pass the n from "[conditions #n]" or 0 for current state. It does not state the default or the range of valid n values, leaving a small 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 gives a specific verb (retrieve/see) and a well-defined resource: the analysis conditions behind a result, enumerated as Liberty, netlist, SDC, SPEF files, run_tcl constraint changes, switching-activity source, and scenes. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_summary or get_status, so it stops short of a 5, but an agent can tell what this returns.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use instructions tied to output: results end with "[conditions #n]", pass that n as `state`, or 0 for the current state. This is a clear trigger condition, though it does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it falls short of 5.

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