describe_condition

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a docstring and parameter list with types, explains parameter types (dataset names must match, primitives take direct values), and notes that optional parameters get defaults. No mention of auth or rate limits, but appropriate for a describing tool. No contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and returns overview. It then adds relevant usage details about parameter interpretation for run_verification. While efficient, the extra details could be considered tangential, preventing a perfect 5.

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?

The tool has one input parameter and an output schema. The description covers what the tool returns (docstring, parameter list) and provides crucial context for using those parameters with run_verification. However, it omits an explicit definition of the 'name' parameter, leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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 sole input parameter 'name' (string required) is not explained in the description. Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate for this parameter. It instead discusses parameters of the condition being described, which are not part of the input schema.

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 'Describe the parameters of a ProSuite quality condition' and mentions 'Returns the full docstring and parameter list with types.' This explicitly differentiates from siblings like list_conditions (lists conditions) and describe_spec (describes a spec).

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 provides clear context for usage: it returns parameter information needed for run_verification, with details on how to interpret dataset vs primitive parameters and optional defaults. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with alternative tools, so not a 5.

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