List Forms question show conditions

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the two-level operator/items structure and the fact that group ids are the handles other tools consume. This is real value beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about pagination or empty results.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose and then the structural detail. Every sentence carries information, though the backtick-heavy formatting is slightly noisy.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the return envelope and the group-id relationship, which is the main thing an agent needs to consume the result and chain into sibling tools. Missing only minor details like pagination or empty-list behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so both survey_id and question_id are fully documented in the schema, including the 24-char hex format and source tool. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 identifies the resource (a question's show conditions) and characterizes the return shape as a {operator, items} envelope, and it names the sibling get/update/delete tools that consume a group's integer id. The list verb is implied rather than stated, and it does not sharply distinguish itself from forms_conditions_question_get, but the resource and scope are clear.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus forms_conditions_question_get or the page/submit/hook condition variants. The only guidance is indirect — that group ids feed the get/update/delete tools — which requires the agent to infer the routing itself.

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